The Honor ab l e L aw renc e P. Z atkoff, U nited States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0697n.06 F iled: Novem ber 14, 2008 Nos. 06-2038/07-1406/07-1407 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
NATIO NA L L AB O R R E L AT I O NS BOARD, P etitioner , v. CONSOLIDATE D BISCUIT COMPA NY, Respondent/ Cross-P etitioner . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON P ETIT ION F OR RE VIEW OF A N OR DE R O F THE N AT ION AL LA BOR RELATIONS BOARD

Before: DA UG HTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; ZA TKOF F , District Judge. * JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. T h e N a ti o n a l L a b o r Re lations Boar d (“B oard” ) seeks e nforc ement of i t s d ec ision and order finding that Consolidated Biscuit Company (“CB C”) committed a number of

violations of section 8(a) (1) a nd (3) of the National L abor Relations Act (“A ct”) , 29 U.S.C. § 158, and order in g a new union ele ction at CBC’s McComb, Ohio, manufa cturingfac ility . CBC has cr oss-petitioned, seeking revie w of cer tain aspec ts of the B oard’ s decision. The B aker

y , Confectionar

y , and Tobac co Workers and Gra in Mill ers International Union, AFL -CI O, (“ Union”) ha s intervene d, seekingrevie w of other aspec ts of the Boa

rd’s de cision. TheN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

2 CBC and B oard ha

ve both filed motions to strike the Union’s brief , on the g rounds that this court la c ks jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r t he Un ion ’s argume nts
. For the re asons s et forth below, we enfor ce the Boa rd’s orde r in full. Additionally , we de ny the motions to st rike the U nion’s brief. I. T h i s c a s e ar i s e s o u to f

a u n i o no r g an i z i n g dr i v e c o n d u c t e d a tC B C ’ s M c C o mb , O h i o , f a c i l i t y, wher e CBC manuf

actur es cookie s, cra cker s, and other ba ked g oods. Be g inning in F ebrua ry 2002, some of CBC’s e mploy ees be g an promoting union organ i z at i o n. On May 21, 2002, employ ees supporting the Union beg an demonstrating in fr ont of the CBC fa cility , an d t h e Un ion filed a repr esentation petition wit h the Boa rd shortly there afte r. I n a repr esentation e lection conducte d on Aug ust 15, 2002, employ ees r ejec ted union repr esentat i o n . E m p l o y ees c ast 286 votes in favor of
re pr e se ntatio n a

nd 48 5 v ote s a g a ins t it
. The Union filed unf

air lab o r p ra ct ice c harg es with the B oard be tween Ma y 24, 2002, and April 25, 2003. The Union also filed objec tions to conduct aff ectingthe re sults of the elec tion. On Fe bruar y 26, 2003, the Gene ral Couns el i ssued a consolidated c omplaint, and subsequently issued
an ame nded consolidate d complaint on April 30, 2003. I n the complaints, the Ge nera l Counsel alleg ed that CBC violated se ction 8(a) (1) of the Act on numerous occa sions pr ior to the Aug ust 15, 2002, elec tion. Additionally , the Gene ral Counsel c ontended that CBC violated sec tion 8(a)( 3) and (1) of the Act in disciplining or discharg ing e ight union-suppor ting e mploy ees. Following a ten-da

y hear ing, an administrative law judge (“A L J ”) issued a

leng thy decision
on Janu ary 14 , 2 00 4. Th e AL J found that CB C vi olate d s e c tio n 8 (a )( 3) and (1 ) i n:N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

3 1. Terminatingthe employ ment of Will iam L awhor

n on Aug ust 16, 2002. 2. Terminatingthe employ ment of Russell Teeg ardin on August 26, 2002. 3. Terminatingthe employ ment of John Green on Septembe r 18, 2002. 4. Terminatingthe employ ment of Ga

ry Hill on J anuar

y 3, 2003. 5. Terminatingthe employ ment of Thomas Thompson on January 3, 2003. 6. Terminatingthe employ ment of Ty

rone H olly

on J anuar

y 20, 2003. 7. Terminatingthe employ ment of Patti W ickman on January 21, 2003. 8. I ssuing a

disciplinary

war ning to Russell Tee g ardin on June 22, 2002. 9. I ssuing a

written wa

rning to Russell Teeg ardin on June 26, 2002. 10. Disqualifying [Cheri] Todd from the position of temporar y or fill-in le ad on May 21, 2002. The AL J additionally

deter mined that CBC committed the following eig hteen violations of sec tion 8( a )( 1) of the Ac t: 1. B y Ga ry B ir ke me y e r, in t

he e arl y sp ri ngof 20 02 , in te lli ngTy ro ne Ho lly

no t to ta lk about the Union on company time a nd telling Holly

that he wa s hara ssing e mploy ees about the Union. 2. B y Di ane Tate , in

Ap ri l or Ma y 20 02 , in su g g e sti ng to Ty ro ne Ho lly

that it wo uld be futile to support the Union. 3. By M ar gi e Brown, in May

or June 2002, in sugg esting to Ty rone H olly

that supporting the Union would be futile. 4. B y Mark Wur g e ss in ins tr uc tin g CB C se c ur ity g ua

rd s to c a ll the po lic e a t th e fi rs t sign of union activi t y

and by [C BC] in calling the police to the McComb plant on May 21, 2002. 5. By Dan Ke ar, on Ma

y 21, 2002, in telling [Cheri] Todd t hat she c ould not be a te mpo ra ry le a d o n a c c ount o f h e r u

nio n a c tiv iti e s o n th e pr e vio us nig ht. 6. By ere cting signs indicating video surveillance of are as in whi ch p ro u nion employ ees w ere cong reg ating , on May 23, 2002. 7. By Susan Henr

y , in announcing to employ ees, that they could lose their Christmas bonus if they

supported the Union. 8. By J ame s Ke lle r, in t e lli nge mpl oy e e s th a t se le c tin g the Un ion wo uld c a us e Re sp on de nt t o lo se c on tr a c ts a nd g o b ank ru pt.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

4 9. B y Yo land a Me ans , in J uly 20 02 , in su g g e sti ng to T y ro ne Ho lly

that it wa s f uti le to support the Union. 10. By Be tty Ger ren on June 7, 2002, in threate ning e mploy ee w ith stricter discipline if they chose to support the U nion. 11. By a sec urity

g uard, on or

about J une 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , in telling Cathy Hill that she c o u l d n o td i s t r i b u t e u n i o nl i t e r a tu r e o nc o mp an y p r o p e rt y. 12. By R i ch ar d Quinn, in restra ining a nd interfe ring with the protec ted union a c tiv iti e s o f G ary

Hi ll a nd Th oma s T ho mps on , an d by pla c inga dis c ipl ina

ry no te in eac h of their pe rsonnel files on or about J une 27, 2002. 13. By Dennis Her od in sug g esting to T homas Thompson on or about Aug ust 1, 2002, that CBC President J ames Appold mig ht move production lines out of the McComb fac ility

if employ ees se lected the Union. 14 . By Jame s A p p o l d

i nA u g u s t2 0 0 2 , i ns u g g e s t i n g t o e mp l o y e e s t h a tb e n e f i ts c ur re ntl y e njo y e d w ou ld b e los t if they se le c te d th e Un ion

a s th e ir collective- barg aining repr esentative. 15 By assig ning T ammy

Medina more onerous work on or about August 11, 2002, due to her vocal support f

or the Union. 16. By Be t ty

Ger ren, on Aug ust 10, 2002, by telling William L awhor

n and other employ ees that L awhor

n would be fire d if the Union lost the repr esentation election. 17. By Dan Ke ar a

nd Gar y Birke mey er, on or

about August 13, 2002, by requiring Patti Wickman and Cathy Hill to remove mag ic marke r messag es supporting the Un ion fr om t he ir arm s. 18. By Kelly Fr ey , on Aug ust 21, 2002, in telli ng Thomas Thompson that his union was not ar ound to protect him any more. The AL J rec ommended the issuanc e of a broad or der r equiringCBC to cea se and desist from infring ing on its employ ees’ rig hts. He further r ecommende d that the union repr esentation election of August 15, 2002, be set aside a nd a new elec tion conducted.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

Chairman B attista and Member Schaumber

constituted the majority
. 1 5 Both CB C and the Ge nera l Counsel filed exceptions to the AL J ’s decision. I n an Apr il 28, 20 06 , d e c isi on

and or de r, the B oa

rd a ff ir me d in pa rt and re ve rs e d in pa

rt the AL J’s f

ind ing s. With respe ct to five sec tion 8(a)( 1) violations, the Boa rd re verse d the AL J
. Specifica lly , the Board f ound that CB C di d n ot v iol a te se c tio n 8 (a )( 1) wh e n: (1 ) Y ola nd a Mann s ma de a

c omm e nt t o T y

ro ne Ho lly abo ut th e Un io n; (2) CBC erect ed s igns in di cat in g vid eo s urv eil lan ce andno tr esp ass in g; (3 ) C BC
a ssi g ne d T a mmy

Me din a to r e lie ve se ve n ma c hin e op e ra tor s; ( 4) su perv is ors i ns tr uc te d Patti Wickman and Cathy

Hill to remove marke r m essag es from their arms; and (5) a super visor made a comment about the Union to Thomas Thompson. The Boar d also reve rsed five of t he AL J ’s sec tion 8 ( a ) ( 3 ) f i n d i n g s ; t h e B o ar d c o n c l u d e d t h a t C B C l aw f u l l y t e r m i n a t e d G r e e n , H i l l , T h o mp s o n , H o l l y, and Wickman. Boa rd Member

Walsh diss ented in par

t from the B oard ma

jority ’s dec isi o n . The dissent 1

c on c lud e d, lik e the AL J, that CB C vi olate d s e c tio n 8 (a )( 3) and (1 ) wh e n it dis c ha rg e d Gr e e n, Hi ll, Thompson, Holly , and Wickman. Additionally , the dissent found that CBC violated se ction 8(a) (1) when it e rec ted video surveillance and no trespassing signs near the are a wher e union suppor ters had been c ong reg ating , as we ll as when super visor Kelly

Frey told Thompson that his union was not around to prote ct him any more. The B oard, like the AL J , issued a broad cea se-a nd-desist order , to which no exceptions were filed. Member

Schaumber

dissented from the is s u an ce of the broa d order . The B oard’ s order require d CBC to take the f ollowing a ffirmative actions: offe r Todd the position of f ill-in lead; offe r
re ins ta te me nt t o L awh or

n a nd Te e g ard in; make L awh or n, Te e g ard in, and

To dd wh ole fo r a

ny los tN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

6 ear nings or benef its; remove from its files any ref ere nce to unlaw ful war

nings a nd discharg es and notify the employ ees that this ha s been done ; and post copies of a reme dial notice. The Boa rd fur ther order ed that the August 15, 2002, election be se t aside and a new e lection be c onducted. On August 2, 2006, the Boa rd petitioned this court for enfor ceme nt of its decision and orde r. CBC has cr oss-petitioned and see ks reve rsal of those portions of the B oard’ s decision and or der not i n i t s fa v or. The U nion has filed an inter venor’ s brief c halleng ing the Boa rd’s de termination that CBC lawfully

terminated G ree n, Hill, Thompson, Holly , and Wickman. II. Whil e thi s c ourt

re vie ws de novo t h e B o ar d ’s l ega l co n cl u s i o n s , t h e B o ar d ’s fa ct u al fi n d i n gs will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence on the re cord. Conley v. NLRB , 520 F.3d 629, 638 (6th Cir. 2008) (pe r cur iam); 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)
. Additionally , the substantial evidenc e standa rd applies to the Boa

rd’s application of law to pa rticular f acts. Int’l Union, Unit ed Auto., Aerospac e & Agric. Imple ment W

orkers of Am. v. NLRB , 5 1 4 F. 3 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). “F ac tu al fi n d i n gs
are su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e if

a re a so nab le mind m ig ht a c c e pt t he e vid e nc e a s a de qu a te to support a conc lusion.” NLR B v . I nt’ l B hd . o f E le c . W or k e rs , 514 F.3d 646, 649 ( 6th Cir. 20 0 8) (interna l quotation marks and citations om i tted). Unde r the substantial evide nce sta ndard, “ the Boa rd’s re asonable infere nces ma y not be displace d on revie w eve n though the court mig ht jus tif ia bly have re a c he d a dif

fe re nt c on c lus ion ha d the matte r be e n b e fo re it de novo .” Harborside H e a lt h c a r e, I n c . v . NLRB , 2 3 0 F. 3 d

2 0 6 , 2 0 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g NLR B v . S t. F ra nc is He alt hc ar e Ce ntr e , 212 F.3d 945, 952 ( 6th Cir. 2000)).N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

7 Th e su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e sta

nd ard a pp lie s “ e ve n if the NL RB and the AL J re lie d o n th e same fac ts to reac h differ ent conc lusions. ‘Our defe renc e to f indings of fac t runs in favor of the B oard, not in favor of t he AL J .’” NLRB v

. Local 334, Laborers I nt’l Union of N. Am. , 481 F.3d 875, 879 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g W .F. Bolin Co. v. NLRB , 70 F.3d 863, 870 (6th Cir. 1995)). “ The ‘substantial evidenc e’ standard is not modified in any way when the B oard a

nd [t he AL J ] di sag ree ,” althoug h “evide nce supporting a conclusion may

be less substantial when a n [AL J ] . . . has drawn conclusions differ ent from the B oard’ s than when he has re ache d the same c onclusion.” W .F . B oli n , 70 F.3d at 870. III . 1.CBC contends that the Boa rd er red in findingthat the company violated sec tion 8(a)( 3) and (1) of the Act by

terminating Russell Teeg ardin a nd Wil liam L awhor

n, by issuing di s ci p l inary
war nings to Te eg ardin on June 22, 2002, and J une 26, 2002, and by disqualifying Che ri Todd from th e po si tion o f t e mpo ra

ry or fi ll- in l e a d o n M ay

21 , 2 00 2. I n tu

rn , th e B oa

rd —w hic h s umm ari ly
a do pte d th e AL J’s f

ind ing s w ithre sp e c t to the se se c tio n 8 (a )( 3) and (1 ) vio latio ns —a rgue s that th e se finding s are supported by substantial evidence
. Un de r se c tio n 8(a )( 3) of the Ac t, an e mpl oy e r m ay no t di sc ri min a te wi th r e sp e c t to the te rm s or tenure of employ

ment for the pur

pose of discour ag ing e mploy ee me mbership i n any labor
or g anizatio n. 29 U. S.C. § 1 58 (a )( 3) ; W .F . B oli n , 70 F.3d at 870. I n other wor ds, “if the e mploy er fires an employ ee for having eng ag ed in union activities and has no other ba sis for the discha rg e, or if the reasons t hat he proff ers are pretextual, the employ er c ommits an unfa ir labor pr actice .” W .F. Bo lin , 70 F.3d at 870 (citations and quotation marks omitted).N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

8 Where a case involves “cha

rg es of employ

ment actions motivated by antiunion animus and employ er protestations of leg itimate rea sons for the a ctions,” this court employ s a burde n-shifting analy sis. Id. ; see also I

shikawa G asket Am., Inc . v. NLRB , 354 F.3d 534, 537 ( 6th Cir. 2004). At the outset, the B oard be ars the initial burde n of demonstrating, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that (1) the employ ee was enga g ed in ac tivity protec ted under

the Act, ( 2) the e mploy er kne w of the activity , and (3) animus toward the protec ted activity motivated the employ er’ s adver se action. Ctr

. Constr. Co., Inc. v. NLRB , 4 82 F .3 d 4 25 , 4 35 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7). A nu mb er of f a c tor s ma y ind ic a te dis c ri min a tor

y mot ive , in c lud ing : t h e co mp an y ’s ex p re s s ed h o s t i l i t y t o wa rd s u n i o n i z at i o nco mb i n edwi t h kn o wl ed ge of the e mploy ees’ union activities; inconsistencies between the proff ere d rea son for discharg e and othe r ac tions of the employ er; dispar ate tre atment of c erta in employ ees compar ed to other e mploy ees w ith sim ilar work r ecor ds or o ff enses; a company ’s de viatio n f

ro m pa st p ra c tic e s in

imp le me nti ng the dis c ha rg e ; and pr oximi ty

in t ime betwee n the employ ees’ union activities and their discha rg e. NLRB v. Gen. Fabrications Corp. , 2 2 2 F. 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g W .F . B oli n , 70 F.3d at 871). The burden the n shifts to the employ er to de monstrate, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that it wo uld

have ma de the same de c isi on wi tho ut r e g ard

to t he fa c t th a t th e e mpl oy e e e ng a g e d in protec ted ac tivity
. Id. The determination of an employ er’ s motive is a fac tual question and is thus subject to the substantial evidenc e standa rd. See In t’ l B hd

. o f E le c . W or k e rs , 514 F.3d at 649. As the AL J observe d, there is ge nera lly no dispute that CBC was a war e of the union activities of Tee g ardin, L awhor

n, and Todd whe n it took ad verse actions ag ainst them. The question, then, is whether a

nti-union animus moti vated CBC, or whether CBC would have taken the sa me ac tions even if the employ ees ha d not eng ag ed in union activities.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

9 We note that the AL J found t hat t he section 8(a)( 3) violations also constituted section 8(a) (1) violations. S ection 8(a )(1) makes it an unfa i r l ab o r p ra ctice f or an e mploy er “ ‘to interfe re w ith,
re str a in, or c oe rc e e mpl oy e e s in the e xer c ise of the ir ri g hts ’ to or g anize , joi n, or ass is t u ni ons, barg ain collectively , and enga g e in collec tive action.” Dayton Newspapers, Inc . v. NLRB , 402 F.3d 651, 659 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (1))
. Whil e section 8(a) (3) and section 8(a )(1)
are no t cot e rm ino us , “ A v iol a tio n o f s e c tio n 8 (a )( 3) of the Ac t ne c e ssa

ri ly int e rf e re s w iththe e xer c ise of statutory

rig hts, and there fore derivatively violates section 8(a )( 1 ) o f t he Ac t.” Ho sp . Cr isto Rede ntor, Inc. v. NLRB , 4 8 8 F. 3 d 5 1 3 , 5 1 8 n . 1 (1 s t C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB , 46 0 U.S
. 69 3, 69 8 n . 4 (1 98 3) ); ac c or d Temp-Maste rs, Inc. v . NLRB , 4 6 0 F
. 3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 9 ( 6 th

Cir. 2006). A. The AL J found, and the Boa rd sum marily aff

irmed, t hat t he dis char g e of Russell Teeg ardin,
as we ll a s th e d is c ip li n ar y w ar n in g s is s u e d to h im o n Ju n e 2 2 an d Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , c o nstitut ed a violation of section 8(a )(3) of the Ac t (and, pre sumably , a der ivative violation of section 8(a )(1) ). Te e g ard in w or

ke d at CB C a s a

se c on d- sh if

t ma int e na

nc e me c ha

nic fr om Augus t 20 00 un til his termination on Aug ust 26, 20 0 2
. Tee g ardin, a leade r in the org anizing drive , beg an lobbying f or union org anization in Februa ry 2002, and CBC be came awa re of Tee g ardin’s pr o-union sentiment in M arc h 2 00 2, wh e n he wa s tol d by su pe rv iso rs no t to pla c e un ion lit e ratur e on

c omp any bu lle tin boards. I n late May 2002, Tee g ardin and others bega n distributing handbills for the U nion in an are a
ou tsi de the CB C f

a c ili ty that w a s und e r s ur

vei lla nc e and vis ibl e to C B C pr e sid e nt Jame s App old from his offic e. The diss em ination of union literature continued until the Aug ust 15 election.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

As the AL J n ote d, the re we re tw o v e rs ion s o f t he me mo i n T e e g ard in’ s p e rs onne l f ile , w ith 2 only one re fer encingTee g ardin’s unio n activity . The AL J conclude d that the memo was i n t e n t i o n a l l y m o d i f

i e d t o o m i tan y m e n t i o no f

u n i o na c t i v i t y. 10 Te e g ard in, a lon g wi th L awh or n, sto od ou tsi de the fa c ili ty ne arl y e ve ry da y so lic iti nge mpl oy e e s to join the Union. On June 5, 20 02 , a human re so ur c e s of fi c e r ra n a c ri min a l ba c kg ro un d c he c k o n T e e g ard in (n o c ri min a l r e c or ds we re fo un d)
. The AL J con c lud e d th a t, g ive n th e a bs e nc e of any c re dib le alternative explanation from CBC, this backg round che ck wa s motivated by CBC’s hostility

toward T e e g ar d i n ’ s u n i o na c t i v i t y. 1. On J une 22, 2002, CBC plac ed in Teeg ardin’s pe rsonnel file a memo relating a

verba l
wa rn ingg ive n to him

by su pe rv iso r Al W il so n. I n th e me mo, Wils on e xpla ine d th a t he tol d Tee g ardin that CBC had rece ived “a couple of complaints, that he wa s hara ssing pe ople about union
su pp or t.” Wils on

a sk e d T e e g ard in n ot t o b e “ so fo rc e fu l” wh e n dis c us sin g the Un ion and no t to 2 “kee p afte r” othe r employ ees a bout the Union. Although the Gene ral Couns el d id not alleg e a
v i o l a t i o nw i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e Jun e 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , w ar n i n g , t h e A L J su a s

po ntefound th at CBC had
v i o l at eds ec t i o n8 (a )( 3 ) a n d (1 ) i ni s s u i n g t h e w arn i n g. Di sc ipl ina

ry a c tio n f a lli ng sh or t of dis c ha rg e may vio late se c tio n 8 (a )( 3) and (1 ) o f t he Ac t. See, e .g. , Sam’s Club v. NLRB , 141 F.3d 653, 655 ( 6th Cir. 1998). I ndeed, the J une 22 war ning—a dis c ipl ina ry a c tio n in its e lf —w a s r e lie d up on in pa

rt wh e n CB C iss ue d a se c on d wr itt e n wa rn ingto Tee g ardi no nJu n e 2 6 , w h ic h in tu r nn o te d th a t f u rth e r in f r a c ti o n s c o u ld

le a d to te r mi n a ti on.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

11 Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts the AL J’s f

ind ingtha t th is J un e 22 dis c ipl ina

ry a c tio n w a s p re te xtua l. The prof fe re d rea son for the w arningwas Te eg ardin’s “ hara ssment” of unnamed employ ees reg ardingunion support. The AL J found, howe ver, that CBC did not have a valid nondi scriminatory rule prohibiting employ ees from discussing unioniz ation during worktime. More over, Te eg ardin’s dis c us sio n o f u

nio nizatio n w a s p ro te c te d e ve n if oth e r e mpl oy e e s su

bje cti vel y consid e re d it “har assment.” Se e Nic ho las Cou nty He alt h Ca reCe nt. , 33 1 N. L .R. B
. 97 0, 98 1 (2 00 0) (“ I t is we ll settled that an e mploy er c anno t l awfully take disciplinary

action to stop subjectively offe nsive activity without reg ard to whe ther that a ctivity is protected by

the Act.” ). Wilson’s vague asser tion of cha rg es of harassment from unnamed e mploy ees is, as the AL J found, simply insufficient to show that his w arning to T eeg ardin was prompted by actions unprotec ted by

the Act. F inally , the AL J ’s fi nd ingof a vio latio n is su

pp or te d b y his c on c lus ion

that, g ive n th e tw o vers io ns of the me mo i n T e e g ar d i n ’ s f

i l e , t h e m e m o w a s i n t e n t i o n a l l y m o d i f i e d t o o m i tt h e m e n t i o no f

u n i o na c t i v i t y. We need not conside r CBC’s due proce ss argument, in which it conten d s t h at bec ause the A L J su a s po ntefound the June 22 warningt o b e a v i o l at i on of the Ac t, CBC lacke d notice of the
a ll e g e d v i o l a t i o n . C B C d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s ar g u m e n t i n t h e e xc e p t i o n s t o t h e A L J’ s d e c isi on tha t it filed bef ore the Boa

rd. T hus, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(e)
. I n any case , “[i] t is well established that the B oard ma y find a violation not alleg ed in the
c omp la int if the matte r i s r e late d to oth e r v io lat io ns alleg e d in the c omp la int , is fu lly

and fa ir ly litigated, a

nd no prejudice to the respondent has bee n alleg ed or e stablished.” Action Auto Stores Inc. , 298 N.L .R.B. 875, 876 n.2 (1990), enforce d sub nom. NLRB v. Action Auto Stores, Inc. , 951 F.2d 349 ( 6th Cir. 1991) (table de cision). Th e AL J no ted th at the Jun e 22 wa rn ingwa s c los e lyN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

12 c onne c te d w iththe June 26 wa rn ing and su

bs e qu e nt dis c ha

rg e , w hic h w e re a lle g e d a s v iol a tio ns in the complaint. Fur

thermore , any

rema ining pr ejudice w as eliminated upon re view by the B oard, wher e CBC ha d the opportunity —of which it took adva

ntag e—to fully

litigate the issue. Acc ording ly , the B oard’ s determination with re spect to the June 22 d i s ci p l inary war ning issued to Teeg ardin is supported by substantial evidence
.

2. Tee g ardin’s June 26, 2002, written wa rning arose from a verba l alterc ation with employ ee Kevin Ha ssan on J une 24, 2002. Th e tw o me n o ff e re d c on fl ic tin g a c c ounts of t he in c ide nt, bu t, appar ently , they

called e ach othe r liars a nd exchang ed ch all eng es to fig ht. Hassan r eporte d the incident t o CBC preside nt J ames Appold a nd eventua lly

signe d and bac kdated a wr itten statement about the incident. On J une 26, CBC is s u ed T ee gar d i n a wr itten warningfor usingobscene and thr e a te nin g langua g e a g a ins t H a ssa n; t he wa rn inga lso c ite s Wil so n’ s J un e 22 wa rn ing to T e e g ard in reg arding“har assment.” The AL J found t hat t he J une 26 war ning violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Ac t, and we conclude that this determination is supported by substantial evidence
. First, as the AL J noted, the J une 26 wa

rning was pre d i cate d in part on the unlaw ful J une 22 wa rning , as Wilson admit ted. Ad dit ion a lly , th e AL J re a so na bly c on c lud e d th a t CB C ha d tr e a te d H a ssa n mu c h mo re le nie ntl y

wi th respe ct to the incident; no war ning was place d in H assan’ s personne l f ile, and t h e A L J rejected testimony from CBC that it had wa rned H assan ve rbally
.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

13 The AL J further

noted that CBC did not ask Tee g ardin for his version o f t h e incident. As CBC notes, the B oard’ s decision cr iticiz ed the AL J for a ppear ing to “ impose a standar d akin to due pr oc e ss” in f

a ult ingCB C f

or fa ili ng to tho ro ug hly inv e sti g a te va ri ou s inc ide nts
. Ev e n ta

kin g int o consi deration this criticism of the AL J ’s ana ly sis, however , substantial evidence still supports the AL J ’s finding of discriminatory motive w ith r espec t to the J une 26 war ning. T he AL J ’s finding that Hassan w as treated more le niently for his role in the al t er ca t i on is supported by the re cord a

nd,
moreove r, is g rounded in pa rt on the AL J ’s cr edibility deter minations, which this c ourt may revie w only if they have “ no rational ba sis,” Fluor D aniel, Inc. v . NLRB , 332 F.3d 961, 967 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Such disparate treatment is circumstantial evidenc e of discr iminatory motive. Se eG e n . F

a b r ic a ti o ns Corp. , 222 F.3d at 226. I n addition, as not ed above, t he J une 26 war ning was based in part on the
ear lier unlawf

ul warningissued to Teeg ardin on June 22. Thus, we c onclude that substantial evidenc e supports the AL J ’s deter mination. 3. On August 26, 2002, manag ers Jack Johns on and Wilson t erminate d Tee g ardin, infor ming him that he wa s b e ingfi re d f or “ se xua ll y har a ssi ng ” e mpl oy e e Do na ld Wh itt e d a nd fo r f a ili ngto repor t a 1987 DUI

conviction on his Aug ust 2000 employ ment application. The AL J conclude d, and the B oard a ffirme d, that “[t] he evidenc e that CBC discha rg ed Te eg ardin for

discriminatory

rea sons is overwhe lming.” We a g ree . The “sexual hara ssment” char g e arose out of series of confr ontations betwee n Whit ted and Tee g ardin. On Aug ust 7, 2002, Whit ted attempted to provoke Tee g ardin, who w as demonstrating outside the fac ility

in support of the Union, by following him around wi t h an t i -u nion signs. In aN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

14 se c on d c on fr ontat io n the ne xt day , Wh itt e d a g a in t ri e d to pr ov ok e Te e g ard in. Te e g ard in subsequently

complained to his supervisor, H er b Telfor d, who then re ported the c omplaint to higher

level mana g ers. CB C, however , did not investigate the incident. On August 8, Teeg ardin wa s partici p a ti n g in a p ro-union demonstration across the stre et from the pla nt’ s ma in e ntr anc e . Whe n Whitte d w a lke d b y the de mon str a tor s, he y e lle d, “ Waa , w a a . T e ll it to y our mother. ” E i t h er Te eg ardin or L eo Ha cker , another pro-union employ ee, r esponded by y elling some thing a

bout Whi tted “suck i n g d * * k
. ” Whitted told Teeg ardin that he considere d the
re mark to b e se xua l ha

ra ssm e nt, and he re po rt e d the inc ide nt to T e e g ard in’ s su pe rv iso r. CB C di d
no t in te rv ie w Te e g ard in or any wi tne sse s kn ow n to be sy mpathe tic to the Un ion

a bo ut t he inc ide nt. No disciplinary

action wa s taken a g ainst Teeg ardin with re spect to this incident until August 26, the day of his termination. On the day

of the re prese ntation e lection, August 15, human resourc es mana g er Jack Johnson called Scott Greg ory , Tee g ardin’s supervisor at a previous employ er, Hisan, I nc. Greg ory stated that Tee g ardin ha d never hara ssed any one at Hisan. The next day , on Aug ust 16, J ohnson spoke with two Hisan employ ees, who would not e x plain why Tee g ardin had been fired but “ made it clea r that it had nothing to do with sexual harassment.” Subsequ e n tl y , o nA u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , CB C p r e s id e n t A p p o ld in it iate d an o th e r b a c k g r o und chec k on Tee g ardin. This s ear ch re veale d that in 1987, Teeg ardin ha d been c onvicted of dr iving under the influence of alc ohol, which he had not di sclosed on his employ ment application. Also on Aug ust 23, Appold directe d s u pervisor D onald Hag er to monitor Tee g ardin’s union a ctivities, recor d the m, a nd tur n in his no te s to Ap po ld. Th re e da y s late r, on

Au g us t 26 , J oh ns on

and Wils on tol dN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

15 Tee g ardin he was be ing te rminated for “sexually hara ssing” Whit ted and for failing to r eport the DUI conviction. The AL J found t h at t h e following fac ts supported its conclusion that CBC discharg ed T ee gar d i nfo r d i s cr i m i n at o ry re as o n s : (1 ) m an age r D en n i s Ba b b ad m i t t edt h at T ee gar d i n ’s d i s ch ar ge
was bas ed i n p arton th e J un e no tes in hi s p ers on nel fi le, whi ch relat ed t o p rot ect ed act iv it y ; ( 2) C BC ina de qu a te ly

inv e sti g a te d Wh itt e d’ s c omp la int ; ( 3) CB C f a il ed to pr of

fe r a c re dib le nondiscriminatory

rea son for its backg round investig ations of Tee g ardin; (3) the timing of the backg round che cks wa s suspect, g iven that one was made on the day of the re prese ntation election, which wa s also the day

that C BC d ec i d ed to terminate L awhor n, the other pr ominent union supporter; (4) Appold order ed surveillance of Tee g ardin’s union a ctivities on Aug ust 23, the day of the last bac kg round che ck, and T eeg ardin wa s fired three d ay s l ater ; (5) CBC dispar ately treated similar ly s it

u a te d e mp lo y e e s w h o h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f f a ls if yin g e mp lo y

me n t a p p li c a ti o n s and/or
se xua l ha ra ssm e nt; and

(6 ) a s a matte r o f l aw, “sex ual ha ra ssm e nt” do e s n ot e nc omp a ss a sin g le obscene rema

rk of the kind Teeg ardin alleg edly made to Wit ted, and, moreove r, CBC did not have a g ood-fa ith belief that sexual hara ssment encompasse d s u ch behavior. The B oard a dopted the AL J ’s finding that CBC violated sec tion 8(a)( 3) of the A ct when it discha rg ed Te eg ardin. I t noted, howeve r, that much of the AL J ’s di sparate t reatment analy sis was not direc tly on point; the B oard
e xpla ine d, “ We fi nd that [ CB C’ s] disp arate tr e a tme nt of [Marv in] Hin ton , as w e ll a s it s c on du c t inN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

Hinton, who was not a union a ctivist, denied on his employ ment application that he ha d been 3 convicted of

any crime. CB C r an a backg round chec k two day s after Hinton applied and f

ound that Hinton had two convictions on his rec ord. CBC hire d Hinton non etheless. Additionally , the company did not fire Hinton, who also ha d other discipli nary war nings, w hen he w as ac cused of sexually hara ssing a cowor

ker by putting his ha

nd on the cowor

ker’ s leg and say

ing, “ Iwant to f*** y ou . . . I ’m g oing to take y ou home. You’r e my bitch.” CBC fina lly

terminated H inton after he was disciplined on sever al other oc casions. 16 respondi n g

to Wh it te d ’ s Au g u s t 8 c o mp la int about Teeg ardin while f ailing to investig ate Te eg ardin’s Aug ust 7 complaint about Whi tted, are the most compelling e x amples of dispar ate tre atment.” 3 The B oard’ s finding is clea rly supported by substantial e vidence on the rec ord. Numer ous fac ts, as rec ited above, c orrobor ate a finding of discriminatory motive and pre text with respec t to the termination of Te eg ardin, a nd we, a ccor dingly , decline to ove rturn this finding on a ppeal. B. Wil lia m L aw h o r

n b e g an w o r

k in g f o r CB C in A p r il 1 9 9 1 an d r e ma in e d e mp lo y e d by the
c o mp an y u n t i l h i s t e r

m i n a t i o no nA u g u s t1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e d ay f o l l o w i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o ne l e c t i o n . In Fe bruar y 2002, L awhor

n beg an to a ssist in a union or g anizing drive (f or a diff ere nt union than the party to the instant case) by

handing out authorization cards a nd union literat ure. The n, in March
or April of 2002, L awhor

n contac ted the Union re g ardingthe possibilit y of org anization. L awhor n pa rt ic ipate d in

the fi rs t da

y of un ion ha nd bi llingou tsi de of

the fa c ili ty

on Ma y 21 , 2 00 2. CB C,
acc ording ly , viewed L awhor n as a le ader

in the union org anizing ca mpaig n. 1. The AL J found, and the Boa rd affirmed, that CBC violated sec tion 8(a)( 1) of the A ct when, on Aug ust 10, 2 0 0 2 , s u

p e r v is o r B e tt y G e r r e n w ar n e d L aw h o r

n th a t if th e U n io n d id n o t w in theN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

17 repr esentation election, L awhor n would be fire d. On that day , L awhor n was makingprounioniz ation signs with two other CBC employ ees w hen Ge rre n arr ived at his h o u s e. Upon observingthe sig ns, Gerr en told him, “y ou know if the Union doesn’t g et voted in, y ou’ll be fire d.” Ger ren did not testify at t he adminis trative hearing , and, consequently , the AL J found that, in light of L awhor

n’s unre butted testimony , Ger ren’ s comment violated the Ac t. That Ge rre n may have made the comment i n a friendly manner does not undermine the AL J ’s deter mination. The rele vant inquiry is whether “ substantial evidence d em o n strates that the
em p lo y e r ’ s s tate me n ts , c o n s id e r e d f r o m th e e mp lo y e e s ’ p o in t o f v ie w , h a d a r e a s o n a b le tendenc y to coer ce.” Da

y ton N ew sp ape rs , 402 F.3d at 659. I ndeed, a s this court has noted, “T he mer e exis tence of friendly relations betwee n a supervisor and an employ ee does not prec lude a f inding that the supervisor employ ed coer cion violative of the Ac t.” NLRB v. Homem aker Shops, I nc. , 724 F.2d 535, 550 (6th Cir. 1984). Her e, Ge rre n’s threat of termi n at i o n , viewed f rom the per spective of

a
rea sona b le e mp lo y e e , w o u ld

te n d to h a v e a

c o e r c iv e e f

f e c t. We th

u s c o n c lu d e th a t t

h e B oard’ s deter mination with respect to Ge rre n’s war ning is supporte d by

substantial evidence
. 2. Both the A L J and the B oard also deter mined that L awhor

n’s August 16, 2002, termination violated the Ac t. We ag ree , as substantial evidenc e amply supports this conclusion. On August 14, 2 002, the day befor e the r epre sentation elec tion, L awhor n attended a pree lection confe renc e along with r epre sentatives from CBC, the Union, and the Boa rd. A Union repr esentative asked if he could s ee t h e ele ction notices posted at the f acility , and CBC mana g erN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

18 J ohnson ag ree d that he could view the notice post ed at the EZ P ack building. J ohnson did not offer to e sc or t th e re pr e se ntativ e or g ive him dir e c tio ns to t

he bu ild ing . Upo n th e re pr e se ntativ e ’s re qu e st, L awh or n e sc or te d h im to the EZ Pa c k buil din g . Af te r pur c ha sin g ha ir ne ts, wh ic h w e re re qu ir e d in the fa c ili ty ’s pr od

uc tio n a re a , f ro m a se c ur ity g ua rd , L awh or

n le d t he r e pr e se ntativ e on the mos t direc t route to EZ Pack—throug h the C BC production are a. After revie wing the not ice, L awhor n
and the re pr e se ntativ e wa lke d a ro un d th e ma in b uil din g to t he pa rk inglot
. When the Union lost the repre sentation elec tion on August 15, Johnson, C BC pre sident Appold, and CBC vice -pre sident L arr y I v an had an impromptu mee ting in which the y discussed L awhor n’s esc ort of the Union repr esentative throug h the plant. Acc ording to I van’s testimony , on Au gu s t1 6 , h e i n fo rm edL aw h o rn t h at h e w as b ei n g fi re d fo r t ak i n g an u n au t h o ri z edv i s i t o r t h ro u gh the p la n t an d “ e le c ti o n e e r in g . ” T h e “ e le c ti o n e e r in g ” c h ar g e s u p p o s e d ly d e r iv e d f

r o m e mploy ee Terr y Kre isher’s re po rt

that L awh or

n ta unted him b y

c ha nti ng“ un ion

tim e , unio n ti me ” wh ile
esco rt in g the U ni on repr esen tat iv e th rou gh th e pro du cti on fl oo r. Th e AL J fou nd , h owe ver, th at C BC
was una war e of a ny elec tioneering alleg ations at the time it made the dec ision to t erminate L awhor n. I n support of this c onclusion, the AL J noted that: Kre isher’s testimony reg ardingwhen he informed CBC of the a lleg ation was lar g ely uncorr oborated ; J ohnson did not ge t a statement fr om Kreisher until one week a fter L awhor n’s dischar g e; and I van’s notes of the August 16, 2002, meeting do not
m e n t i o nt h e K

r e i s h e r i n c i d e n t
. T h e A L J f

u rt h e r f o u n d Iv an ’ s t e s t i m o n y t o b e i n c r e d i b l e . F i n a l l y, the AL J conclude d that the seco n d p age o f L awhor n’s termination notice—the only pag e which mentioned elec tioneering —was fa bricated sometime afte r L awhor n’s dischar g e.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

19 The AL J then found that L awhor n’s dischar g e wa s unlawful, as CB C’s proff ere d rea son for his te rmination was prete x tual. This f inding is suppor

ted by substantial evidence on the re cord. The AL J rea sonably

inferr ed CBC’s discr iminatory motive from, inte r a lia , the following : the temporal proxi mity of L awhor

n’s discharg e to the repr esentation e lection; Ger ren’ s unlawful Augu s t 10
war ning that L awhor

n would be fire d if the Union lost the elec tion; the failure of I van’s August 16 meeting notes to mention the Kreisher incident; and CBC’s tre mendous hostilit y towards the U nion. Addition a ll y , th e A L J n o te d th a t th e r e ma in in g r e a s o n f o r L aw h o r

n ’ s d is c h ar g e
—

h is e s c o rt of

an
un a c c omp anie d vis ito r t

hr ou g h th e pla

nt— wa s a lso ob vio us ly

pr e te xtua l, g ive n th a t: CB C w a s w e ll
awa re that the Union repr esentative was walking inside the plant; CBC did not give any instructions
on ho w t o g e t to the EZ Pa c k f a c ili ty ; and L awh or

n an d the re pr e se ntativ e too k the sh or te st r ou te to the fa cility
. The Boar d’s adoption of t he AL J ’s findi ng is supported by overw helming e vidence on the re c or d. CB C’ s argume nts to t he c on trary are who lly

un pe rs ua siv e ; CB C a sk s th is c ourt to overturn the ALJ ’s cre dibilit y deter mination with respect to Kr eisher’ s testimony . But this court “seve rely limit [s] [i ts] revie w of c redibility deter minations and acce pt[ s] those made by the B oard unless they

have no r ational basis.” Fluor Daniel , 332 F.3d at 967 (quotation marks omitted). He re, the AL J provided an entirely rational ba sis for re

jecting Kre isher’s testimony , as desc ribed a bove. Acc ording ly , we c onclude that substantial evide nce suppor ts the Boa rd’s determination that CBC unlawfully

discharg ed L awhor

n. C. The B oard a ffirme d the AL J ’s finding that CBC violated s ection 8(a)(1) of the Ac t by telling C h er i T o d d that she could not be a fill-in lead bec ause of

her union a ctivity , as we ll as the AL J ’sN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

20 deter mination that CBC violated 8(a) (3) whe n it denied Todd the fill-in lead position beca use of he r
un ion a c tiv ity . O n M ay 20 , 200 2, mana g e r Da n Ke a r ha d inf or me d T od d th a t th e re wa s a po ssi bil ity that she would be g iven a position as a f ill-in lea dperson to c over for e mploy ees g oing on va cation. The ne x t day , Kea

r obser ved Todd in fr ont of the fac ility passing out union car ds. Shortly there afte r, Kea r, along with manag er Chris S herr ick, ca lled Todd into his office. B y his own admission, Kear told Todd that she would not be g iven the job of fill-in lea d as a r esult of her union activity

the nig ht befor e. As the AL J explained, how ever , the fill-in lead position is not a supervisory position, and persons in this positi on are elig ible to vote in a re prese ntation election. C B C c l a i m s t h a t n o v i o l a t i o n o f t h e A c t o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o K e ar ’ s t e s t i m o n y, To ddst ate d duri ng th eir

con vers ati on th at s he “ch os e th e Un io n ins tea d of the lead po si ti on .” C BC misses the point; Todd never should have had to make suc h a choic e. Ke ar’ s statement provides dir e c t e v i d e n c e o f

C B C ’ s u n l aw f

u l m o t i v a t i o nf

o r t h e a dv e r s e e mp l o y

m e n ta c t i o ni tt o o k

a g a ins t Todd. See Gen. Fabrications Corp. , 22 2 F .3 d a t 22 6. CB C, mor e ov e r, ha s n ot e ve n atte mpt e d to
car ry its b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t it w o u ld h a v e ta k e n th e s a me a dv e r s e a c ti o n in th e a b s e n ce of Todd’s union ac tivity
. See id. Thus , t h e Bo ar d ’s deter mination that CBC violated both section 8(a) (3) a nd section 8(a )(1) of the Ac t is clearly supported by

substantial evidence
. IV. I n i ts bri ef, th e Uni on con ten ds th at th e Boarderredin fi nd in g, con tr ary to th e AL J , t hat CBC lawfully discharg ed John Green, Ga ry Hill, Thomas Thompson, Ty rone H olly , and Patti Wi ckman. Both CB C and the B oard, how ever , contend that this cou rt l ac k s j urisdiction to review the issues pr e se nte d in

the Un ion ’s br ie f. Spe c if ic a lly , the y argue that the Un ion , h a vin g ne ve r p e tit ion e d th isN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

21 court for revie w of the B oard’ s decisio n , i s mere ly an interve nor and is ther efor e pre cluded f rom raising issues not argued by the B oard or

CBC. This jurisdictional questi o n ar i s es from rather leng thy proce dural history . On August 29, 20 06 , th e Un ion fi le d a doc ume nt c a pti on e d “ Mo tio n f

or L e a ve to I

nte rv e ne ” in t

his c ourt . Wh ile the motion was sty led as a n intervention motion, the body of t he mot ion also stated that the Union moved “to file a

Petition for Review,” a

nd the m emora

ndum attache d to the motion st ated that the Union “also see ks this C ourt’s per mission t o appea l the Boa rd’s de cisi o n t o dismiss the wrong ful termination of the re m ai n i n g five discr iminatees.” O n September 25, 2006, the cler k g rante d the Union’s motion, specifica lly ref ere ncing it as a “motion . . . to intervene .” The Union f

i l ed i ts brief on F ebrua

ry 22, 2007, and, shortly

there afte r, on Mar ch 2, 2007, t h e Bo ar d fi led a motion to strike the Union’s brie f. In this mot ion, the Boa rd ar g ued that the Union’s interve nor brief

should have de fende d the B oard’ s decision and or der, but, inst ead, the brief soug ht to challeng e portions of the B oard’ s decision. Notably , the B oard pointed out t h at the briefingschedule set up by this court was a

ppropriate only if the intervening Union was de fending the B oard’ s decision; pursuant to the orig inal briefingschedule , the CBC wa s to fi l e an opening brief, the Boa

rd was to f

ile a responsive brief, the Union was to f ile an in t er v en o r brief simult aneously

with the Boa

rd’s brie f, and CB C was to file a r eply to th e Bo ar d an d intervenor ’s briefs. This brie fing schedule did not provide the B oard w ith an opportunity to respond the Union’ s
argume nts
. Following the Board’ s motion to strike, C BC also filed a simil ar motion, the Union filed a response , and the Boa

rd and CBC filed replies. The cler k then issued an orde r on Oc tober 11, 2007,N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

22 in whic h th e U n io n ’ s mo ti o n to in te r v e n e w a s “ c o n s tr

u e d a s a p e ti ti o n f

o r r e v ie w . ” The orde r permitted the B oard a

nd CBC to respond t o t h e Union’s br ief by filing br iefs in re sponse. Ad dit ion a lly , th e or de r r e fe rr e d to thi s p ane l th e mot ion s to str ike ; the or de r s tate d th a t th is p ane l is to “ de te rm ine wh e the r t

he mot ion to i nte rv e ne wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o a c t a s a

pe tit ion fo r r e vie w a

nd if it is not, whether the issue the [U] nion’s brief r aises as a n intervenor

is properly

befor e this Court.” The Union contends that the m otion to intervene was sufficient to act a s a petition for re view. Pur suant to the A c t, “ Any pe rs on a g g ri e ve d b y

a fi na l or de r o f t

he B oa rd g ra nti ngor de nyingin whole or in pa

rt the re l i ef s o u gh t m ay o b t ai n a re view of suc h order . . . . by filing . . . a

written petition praying th at t h e o rd er of the B oard be modified or set a side.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(f)
. Additionally , acc ording to Fede ral Rule of A ppell ate Procedure 15(a) (1), “ [r] eview of an ag ency
or de r i s c omm e nc e d b y

fi lin g . . . a pet it ion

fo r r e vie w. ” Th is p e tit ion , mo re ov e r, mus t ( 1) name
eac h party

seekingrevie w either

in the caption or the body of the pe tition, (2) name the a g ency as
a re spondent, and (3) specify the orde r or pa

rt there of to be re viewed. F ed. R. App. P. 15(a) (2). For the most part, the mot ion to intervene satisfies t he substantive re quirements of § 160( f)
and Rul e 15 (a ); a lth ou g h th e mot ion do e s no t sp e c if ic a lly “ name the a g e nc y a s a re sp on de nt, ” thi s is presumably

implied. As note d above, the body of the motion to intervene stated that the Union also moved “to file a

Petition for Review,” and the memorandum attache d to the motion st ated that the Union “a lso seeks this Court’s permission to a ppeal the Boa

rd’s decision to dismiss the wrong ful termination of the r emaining five discr iminatees.” I t doe s appea

r that the motion was initially construed on ly a s a motio n to inte rv e ne by thi s court, a s evidenc ed by

the orig i nal brief

ing sc hedule, de scribed a bove, which did not provide theN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

23 Boa rd with an opportunity

to respond to the Union’s a rg uments. Cf. Fe d. R. App. P. 15.1 (“ I n either an enf orce ment or a r eview pr ocee ding, a party adver se to the National L ab or Relations Boa rd proce eds first on brie fing
. . . , unless the cour t orders othe rwise.” ). The c lerk, howe ver, c orre cted this error w hen, in the Oc tober 11 orde r, the briefingschedule was re set to provide the B oard a nd CBC with an opportun i t y to respond to the Union’s br ief. Indeed, the Boa rd and CB C have now each s ub mi tt ed ar gumen ts in res po ns e to t h e U n i o n ’s b ri ef. T hu s, given th at t he Bo ard a ndCBC
we re ult imate ly

no t pr e jud ic ed by th e or ig ina l br ie fi ngsc he du le , w e wi ll c on str ue the mot ion

to intervene as a pe tition for reviewand, ac cording ly , deny the motions to st rike. We now consider the terminations of J ohn Gre en, Ga ry Hill, Thomas Thompson, Ty rone H olly , and Patti Wi ckman. A. On September

6, 2002, J ohn Gre en returned to work without medical restrictions following
sever al months of medical lea ve and r estricted w ork due to a knee a nd shoulder injury
. Gre en aske d his supervisor to assig n him to a differ ent machine so that he would not have to cr awl under as much
e qu ipm e nt, bu t th e su

pe rv iso r d e nie d th e re qu e st. Th a t same da y , Gr e e n a sk e d to g o ho me wh e n h is knee be g an to bother him; ac cording ly , h i s s upervisor f ound a re place ment for him and pe rmitted him to leave ea

rly . On hi s next schedule d workda y , September 9, Gre en called C BC and reporte d that he wa s not coming to wor k. He did not ca ll in or report to work on Sept em b er 1 0 o r 11. On September 11, however , Gre en deliver ed a doc tor’s note to CBC’s human r esourc es off ice stating

“ se a te d w or

k o nly un til MRI

of kn e e .” On

Se pte mbe r 1 3, Gr e e n’ s doc tor faxed CB C a c op y of MRI results reve aling a knee i njury . Subsequently , Gre en neither repor ted to work nor c alled in at anyN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

24 time therea fter; nor

did CBC contac t Gree n. On September 18, CBC terminated G ree n for f ailing t o c a l l i no r

r e p o rtt o w o r

k f o r t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e d ays , p u r s u an tt o i t s p o l i c y. I n fi nd in g t hat th is ter mi nat io n vi ol ate d sect io n 8(a) (3) of th e Act , t he A L J no ted th at C BC
wa s awa re th at G re e n w a s a

un ion su pp or te r. Th e AL J fur

the r s ur mis e d th a t CB C ha d a c te d w ith
a dis c ri min a tor

y mot ive , b a se d o n th e fo llo wi ngfa c ts: CB C ha rb or e d a n e xtre me de g re e of

anti

un ion anim us ; CB C di d n ot f

oll owits no rm a l pr oc e dure wi th r e sp e c t to ph y sic ians ’ note s, a s it
no rm a lly wi ll c a ll the e mpl oy e e to i nf or m hi m w he the r wo rk

is a va ila ble ; and Gr e e n w a s d isp arate ly treated as c ompare d to Kim Com bs-Mason, an anti-union e mploy ee. T he B oard, on the other ha nd, conclude d, “Eve n assuming that the Gene ral Counsel has met his i nitial burden . . . we find that [C BC] demonstrated that it would have ter minated Gre en eve n in the absenc e of his prote cted activity .” Contrary to the Union’s claim, the pr oper standa rd for evaluating the Boa

rd’s de termination with respec t to Gree n’s dischar g e is substantial evidenc e, not some “heig htened standa rd of r eview.” I ndeed, we conc lude that substantial evidenc e supports the B oa rd ’s fi nd ingre g ard ingthe lawf uln e ss of CBC’s ter

mination of Gree n. As the B oard note d, CBC has a written attenda nce policy

stating that te rm inatio n w ill re su lt if an emp loye e fa ils to r e po rt or c a ll i n f or thr e e c on se c uti ve da

y s. Mo re ov e r, the re c or d d oe s n ot c le arl y sh owthat CB C ha d a

po lic y of c a lli ng e mpl oy e e s who su bmi t phy sicians’ notes, or

that CBC had a

n obligation to contact Gre en. Furthermor e, as the Boa rd found, Com bs -M a so n— an e mpl oy e e no t ter min a te d a ft e r t hr e e c on se c uti ve a

bs e nc e s— is n ot s imi larl y situated to Gre en, as her abse nce w as protec ted under the FL MA. Fina lly , contra ry to the Union’s
assertion, th e B o ar d ’ s d e c is io nd id n o t o v e rtu

r nan y o f th e A L J’ s c r e d ib il it

y d e te r mi n a ti o n s ; t

heN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

25 Boa rd simply assessed the same fa cts as the AL J did and re ache d a diffe rent c onclusion—one which commands this court’s de fer ence under the substantial evidenc e test. Thus, the Board’ s conclusion that CBC provided a leg itimate, nondisc riminatory rea son for its ter mination of Gree n is supported by substantial evidence
.

B. On Dec ember

26, 2002, Gar

y Hill and Thomas Thompson wer e working on the palletizer,
a mac hine that must be run continuously . Hill and Thompson e x pecte d to be relieve d thirty minutes be fo re the e nd

of the ir sh if t, b ut t he ir re pla c e me nt f

a ile d to re po rt

on tim e . Hi ll s po ke wi th supervisor Ke lly

Fr ey by phone and inf

ormed her that he neede d to shut down the palletizer, as he had an a ppointment after his shift, and Thompson had to catch a ride home w ith a cowor

ker. F rey told Hill that either he or Thomps on had to re main and run the palletizer. She also informed H ill that if they chose to le ave they would be repr imanded. Nonethele ss, H ill and T hompson shut down the palletizer and left. On J anuar y 3, 2003, CBC terminated Hill for insubordination and leaving work without permission, and the company t er m i n ated Thompson for rec eiving three war

nings in a twelve- month period, including a wr itten warningfor lea ving w o r k w it h o ut pe rmission on Dece mber 26. The AL J found that CBC violated se ction 8(a)(3 ) o f t he Ac t in terminating H ill and Th omp so n, pr o- un ion e mpl oy e e s who ha d c on tin ue d d istri bu tin g un ion

lit e ratur e a ft e r t

he Au g us tN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

26 15 re pr e se ntatio n e le c tio n. Th e AL J inf e rr e d CB C’ s disc ri min a tor y mot ive fr om t

he fo llo wi ngfa c ts: CBC had de monstrated anti-union a nimus; t he shut down of the palletiz er was onl y briefly harmful to production; and other e mpl o y ee s wi th three w arning s in a twelve- month period wer e not te rm inate d. Th e B oa

rd , h ow e ve r, c on c lud e d th a t CB C ha d me t its bu rd e n o f p ro vin g tha

t it wo uld have te rminated Hill and Thompson for leg itimate rea sons even i n t h e ab s ence of their pr otected
a c t i v i t y. The B oard’ s decision i s supported by substantial evidenc e on the re cord. A s the Boa rd noted, both Hill and Thompson did enga g e in t h e co n d uct of whic h eac h was a ccuse d, and, more over, CB C’ s p oli c ie s c le arl y pe rm it t e rm inatio n f or the ir c on du c t. T he B oa

rd a lso po int e d o ut t

hat w hil e some CBC employ ees w ere not discharg ed for recei v ing thr ee w arning s in a y ear or for insubordination, other employ ees w ere treated in a similar fashion as Hill and Thompson. The B oard also found, contr ary

to the AL J , that the di ffe renc e in CBC’s st ated reasons for the di schar g e of e ach employ ee c ould be re asonably explained: Hill defied a dire ct orde r fr om Fre y in shutting down the palletizer and lea

ving—thus mer iting ter

mination for insubordination—wher eas Thompson fa iled to abide by

an indi rec t order , from Frey via Hil l, to rema in at work. Contrar y to the Union’s re peate d
and un su bs tanti a te d c on te nti on , th e B oa rd did no t re

je c t any of the AL J’s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns ; ag ain, as with Gre en’s termination, the Board sim ply rea ched a di ffe rent conclusion, based on the
rec ord, as to whe ther CB C had offe red a leg itimate rea son for the dischar g e of H ill and Thompson. The B oard’ s conclusion, ac cording ly , is supported by substantial evidence
. C.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

27 On J anuar y 18, 2003, Ty

rone Holly , a pro- union employ ee, w ore a shirt with buttons to work
a t CB C, w he re he wa s ser vin g a s re lie f ma c hin e op e rator
. CB C had be e n pha sin g ou t butto n s hir ts for the pa st two y ear s, and, on J une 10, 2002, following a ser ious incident of a c onsumer choking on a button, CBC sent a memo to all employ ees stating that, beg inning on J uly 1, no CBC employ ees would be per

mitted to wea

r shi rts with buttons to work. Employ ees w ere g iven instructions on how to obtain button-less uniforms. O n J anuar y 18, supervisor Diane Tate saw Holly around 7:00 or 7:30
a .m. and tol d h im that he c ou ld not we ar the bu tto n shir t. Ho lly a sk e d if

he c ou ld g o h ome , a

nd Tate responde d that h e co u l d n o t
. When Tate saw Holly ag ain at 10:00 a.m., he w as still wearingthe button shirt. S he o b t ai n ed him a shirt with snaps, rather than buttons, and told him to put it on. L ater , howeve r, she sa

w that Holly

had put the snap shirt ove r t he butt on shirt, leaving the buttons on the long er- sleeve d button shirt st ill ex posed. Tate t o ld Holly to remove the button shirt, or he
wo uld be wr itt e n u

p. Whe n T a te saw H oll y

the fo ur th time , he ha d c omp lie d w ithhe r i ns tr uc tio ns . Tate pla ced a

note in Holly ’s per sonnel file on that same day relating the inc ident. Holly was fir ed for insubordination on January 20, 2003. T h e A LJ c o n c l u d e d

t h a tC B C h a d

a d i s c r i m i n a t o r

y m o t i v e i nd i s c h ar g i n g H o l l y . T h e A LJ noted that CBC dis ch ar ged Hol ly without talking to him first and that “H olly was c lear ly

not insubor d i n at e. ” The AL J also found that CBC ha d treated Holly more seve rely

than other
e mpl oy e e s. The Boar d , in

c o n tr a s t, c o n c lu d e d

th a t, p arti c u la

r ly in ma tt e r s o f s a f e ty , it w o u ld n ot substitut e its own judg ment for that of CBC, as the AL J had done by “imposing his own subjec tive standard of

insubordination.” T h e Bo ard f urther note d that the AL J ’s emphasis on CBC’s f ailureN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

28 to q ue sti on Ho lly a bo ut the inc ide nt we nt too fa r; wh ile it w a s p e rm iss ibl e to u se thi s a s a fa c tor in
a sse ssi ngdis c ri min a tor

y mot ivatio n, the AL J w a s, in e ff e c t, i mpo sin g an unw arr ante d d ue -p ro c e sslik e re qu ir e me nt o n CB C. The B oard’ s deter

mination is supported by substantial evidence . I ndeed, in a rec ent ca se, the B oa rd up he ld t he dis c ha rg e of an e mpl oy e e wh o d id n ot i mme diate ly re tur n to he r w or

ks pa c e ; in doing so, the Boa

rd noted: I n passing t he Ac t, Congre ss never intended to authorize the B oard to que stion the rea sonablene ss of any

manag eria l de cision nor to substitute its opinion for that of an employ er in the ma

nag ement of a

company or business, whethe r the de cision of the employ er is reasonable or unreasonable , too harsh or too lenie nt. The B oard ha s no a uth or ity to s it i n ju dg me nt o n ma na g e ri a l de c isi on s. Neptco, Inc

. , 3 4 6 N. L
. R
. B. 1 8 , 2 0 n . 1 6 (2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g NLRB v. Florida Steel Corp. , 586 F.2d 436, 444-45 (5th Cir. 1978)). Moreove r, as the Boa rd pointed out, the evidenc e that other e mploy ees ha d been terminated for insubordination diminis hes t he value of the c ontrary evidenc e of e mploy ees w ho
wer e not treated as seve rely . Thus, the B oard’ s determination that Holly ’s termination wa s lawful is supported by

substantial evidence on the re cord. D. On J anuar

y 20, 2003, supervisor The resa S ch ar t z er r ece ived a c omplaint from leadpe rson Be rt h a No ri ega reg ardingemploy ee Patti Wickman. Norieg a re ported that seve ral tempora ry Hi sp anic wo rk e rs ha d to ld he r that Wic kma n c a lle d the m “ f* ** ing bit c he s. ” Sc ha rt zer sp ok e wi th Wic kma n, wh o de nie d the a lle g a tio ns . Sc ha rt zer the n tol d su

pe rv iso r Da

n Ke ar a bo ut t he inc ide nt. Kea r interview ed the thre e Hispanic employ ees usingNorieg a as a n i nterpre ter; the e mploy eesN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

29 related that Wickman had ca lled them “f***ingbitches.” K ear and super

visor Chris Sherrick then spoke with Wickman, who denied the alleg ations ag ain. Acc ording to Wi ckman’ s testimony , Kea r noted that Wickman had “be en told about this before ” but Wickman protested that she “d i dn’t do it this time.” Kea

r informe d Wickman that she was being indefinitely suspended pe nding a

decision to be made on he r employ

ment status. I n a memo to huma n resour ces pe rsonnel, Ke ar r ecommende d Wic kma n’ s te rm inatio n, no tin g that “ [t]his wo uld no t on ly se nd a str ong me ssa g e in r e g ard s to respe ct and dig nity

but wo u l d s h o w support for our Staffing ag encie s and the Spanish speaking community .” On January

21, human re source s office r Jack J ohnson informed Wickman that she had been te rminated. Th e AL J d ete rmin e d th a t th is t e rm inatio n w a s unla wf ul, fi nd ingthat th e re wa s n o r e lia ble
e vid e nc e that Wic kma

n h a d c a lle d th e e mpl oy e e s “f ** *in g bit c he s” and

that Wic kma

n, an o pe nly pro-union employ ee, w as treated more ha rsh l y t h an other employ ees. The Boa rd, assuming arguendo that the Genera l Counsel had met its initial burden, concluded that CBC had demonstrate d that it would have ter

minated Wickman even in the a bsence of her

protec ted ac tivity
. This decision is supported by substantial evidence on the re cord. F irst, as the B oard note d, Wickman had pre viously

been w arne d and disciplined for scre aming and cursingat employ ees a nd manag ers on se vera l occa sions. The Boa rd fur ther ex p l ained that it di d not ag ree that Kea r’s te sti mony wa s h e ars ay

me re ly be c a us e it i nv olv e d a langua g e ba rr ie r and an int e rp re te r. I nd e e d, in order to m e e t it s b u r d e n o f p r o o f , “ an e mp lo y e r n e e d n o t p r o v e th a t th e e mp lo y e e c o mm itte d the alleg ed off

ense.” McKesson Drug Co. , 337 N.L .R.B. 935, 937 n.7 (2002). Rather, “the employ er must show that it had a re as on ab le be lie f that the employ ee committed the offe nse, and that it actedN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

30 on that belief when it discha rg ed him.” Id. (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; accord I nt’l Union , 514 F.3d at 585. Thus, Kea

r’s a ccount of

his investigation of the alleg ations ag ainst Wickman is sufficie nt to show that CBC had a

“re asonable belief” that Wickman had committed the offe nse—eve n if it was not
su ff ic ie nt t o p ro ve tha

t Wic kma n h a d a c tua lly

c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e . Th a t CB C ha d a

“ re a so na ble belief” with respec t to the veracity of the a lleg ations is supported by Wickman’s history

of scr eaming
and c ur sin g a t oth e r e mpl oy e e s. An d, a s the B oa rd po int e d o ut, Ke ar’ s st a te me nt t hat CB C w ou ld do well to send a messag e of respe ct reg arding the t reatment of i ts Spanish-speakingemploy ees w as
no t un fo un de d; Wi c kma

n’ s o wn e xit in te rv ie w r e ve a le d h e r a nim os ity tow a rd Hi sp anic e mpl oy e e s. We theref ore ha ve ample r eason to c onclude that the Boa rd’s de termination reg ardingWickman’s discharg e is supported by substantial evidence
. V. The B oard summar ily

adopted the ma

jority of t he AL J ’s findi ng s with respe ct t o the eig hteen section 8(a )(1) violations identified in the AL J ’s dec ision. S pecif ically , the B oard state d: We adopt the judg e’s f

indings that [CBC] vi olated Section 8 (a )( 1 ) t hroug h the following conduct: telling employ ees not to talk about the Union on company time; sug g esting to employ ees that supporting the U nion would be futile; instru ct i ng secur ity g uards to ca ll police at the first sig n of union ac tivity and calling the police to the facility ; telling Cheri Todd that she could not be a fill-in lead because of her union activity ; threatening employ ees with loss of benefits, plant closure, a nd stricter dis c ipl ine if

the y su pp or te d the Un ion ; tell ing Ca thy Hi ll that she c ou ld n ot d istri bu te literature on company proper ty ; and telli ng Wil liam L awhor n and other

employ ees that L awhor

n would be fire d if the Union lost the elec tion. CBC contends that none of these a lleg ed violations are supported by substantial evidence
.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

31 As noted above , section 8(a )(1) of the Act make s it an unfair la bor pra ctice f

or an e mploy er “‘to interf ere with, restra in, or coe rce employ ees in the e x erc ise of their r ights’ to or g anize, join, or assist unions, barg ain collec tively , and eng ag e in collec tive action.” Da y ton Ne wsp ap e rs , 402 F.3d at 659 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1))
. An employ er w ill be found to have violate d section 8(a )(1) when “ substantial evidence demonstrates that the employ er’ s statements, co n s i d ere d from the employ ees’ point of view, had a rea sonable tende ncy

to coer ce.” Id. (citations om itted). I t is not
nece ssary to show actua l coer cion. Id. (citation omitted). A. The AL J found, and th e Bo ar d aff irmed, that CBC unlawf ully threatened that loss of employ ee be nefits would re sult from unioniz ation. “It i s we l l s ettled that an e mploy er violate s § 8(a) (1) of

the Act by

threatening to withhold bene fits .
. . for eng ag ing in union activities.” V & S ProGalv, Inc . v. NLRB , 168 F.3d 270, 279 (6th Cir. 1999)
. Substantial e vidence o n t h e r ecord supports the conclusion that CBC pre sident J ames Appold a nd CBC supervisor Susan He nry made such threats, in viol ation of sec tion 8(a)( 1). Two or thre e day s b ef

o re the repr esentation election, CBC held seve n or eig ht employ ee meeting s at which Appold spoke a nd vice president L arr

y I van ra n a slide projec tor. Nea

rly all of CBC’s employ ees attended one of the se mee tings. Ivan testified that Appold told employ ees, “ when y ou beg in to barg ain y ou start from zero, you don’t start fr om where y ou’re at and bar g ain. For war d, from that point y ou start with a cle an slate.” T y rone H olly , an employ ee who attended one of the
me e tin g s, sim ila

rl y te sti fi e d th a t App old

dis c us se d barg a ini ngin t he fo llo wi ngmann e r: “ [Ap po ld
sa id] [t]h a t it ’s a

g ive and take sit

uatio n. Th a t he ai n’ t go ing to jus t gi ve so me thi ngand jus t g ive itN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

32 awa y . L ike he sa id that we g ot the tur ke y s, the ham, a

nd our c oo kie bo x, and

if the Un ion

c ome s in there , a lot of that stuff we won’t eve n have be cause they put it all on the table. And he sa id that we
wo n’ t g e t pr ob a

bly no ne of that a ft e r it’ s a ll ov e r wi th. ” Ad dit ion a lly , H oll y te sti fi e d th a t App old sh ow e d p ic tur e s o f v and a lis m at th e fa c ili ty and state d th a t un ion pe op le ha d c omm itt e d th e se a c ts
o f v an d a l i s m . T h e A L J c r e d i t e d t h e a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d

t e s t i m o n y. This court has a cknowledg ed that “[a]n employ er’ s statement t hat af ter unionization barg aining will beg in ‘from scr atch’ can be coer cive, a nd there fore a v i o l ati on of § 8(a )(1) , dependingon the context of the statement.” Gen. Fabrications Corp. , 222 F.3d at 231. “Coerc ive statements ar e those whic h indicate that the employ er will adopt a reg ressive barg aining stance or lowere d benef

its to penaliz e wor k er s for unionization, and are viewed in the c ontext of other statements or a ctions by

the employ er.” Id. He re , App old tol d e mpl oy e e s th a t ba

rg a ini ngwo uld start “f rom zero” and “with a clea n slate.” These statements ca n rea sonably

be construe d as coe rcive , g iven t he contex t: in this same meeting, Appold sug g ested that other benefits would be lost, such as holi day hams a nd tur ke y s, and ma lig ne d th e Un ion

wi th a lle g a tio ns of

vio le nc e and

va nd a lis m. Al tho ug h App old

did me nti on that ba rg a ini ng is a “ g ive and

ta ke sit uatio n, ” a s th e AL J note d, his comment that employ ees w ould probably ultimately

lose specif

ic bene fits neg ated this lawful a spectN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

CBC urg es this court t o overturn the AL J ’s credibility deter mination with respect to Holly ’s 4 testimony . We ha

ve limit ed ability to r eview such cre dibilit y deter minations and may

only overturn those that have “ no rational ba sis.” Fluor Daniel , 332 F.3d at 967. CBC’s intimation t hat employ ees lik e Ho lly c ann ot und e rs tand the “ su btl e , pra c tic e d sta te me nts of inf or me d a nd so ph ist ic a te d a g e nts of mana g ement” ha

rdly provides a r easone d b as i s for questioning Holly ’s cr edibility . The AL J ’s de c i s i o nt o c r e d i tH o l l y ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s o b v i o u s l y

r a t i o n a l , a s H o l l y ’ s a c c o u n to f t h e A pp old meeting larg ely

square d with the testimony of I van. A s C B C p o i n t s o u t , t h e p e r s o nt o w h o m H e n r y’ s qu e s t i o nw a s a d dr e s s e d , S h i r l e y K e l l e y, 5 was a ctually

a retired employ ee, not a curr ent employ ee. G iven, howeve r, th at t h i s statement wa s appar ently m ad e within ear shot of a cur rent e mploy ee, T eeg ardin, Ke lley ’s status as a r etired employ ee is irr eleva

nt. 33 of his sp e e c h. Ac c or din g ly , th e AL J’s co nc lus ion , af fi rm e d b y the B oa rd , th a t App old ’s c omm e nts 4 violated sec tion 8(a)( 1) of the A ct is supported by substantial evidence
. The B oard f

urther f ound that Susan Henr y v i o l ated section 8(a) (1) by , like Appold, threatening employ ees with the loss of benef its. During the union org anizing drive , in the spring or
summe r o f 2 0 0 2 , Su s an H e n r y , a li n e s u

p e r v is o r , a p p r o a c h e d a CB C e mp lo y e e d is tr ib u ti n g union han d b il ls in f r o n t o f th e f a c il it y . H e n r y , b y h e r o w na dmi s s io n , s tate d

th a t s h e in qu ir e d

o f the
e mp lo y e e , “ [A ]r e y o ute ll in g th e s e p e o p le th a t they co u ld lo s e th e ir

Chr is tm a s b o nu s [?]” Considering this statement from an e mploy ee’ s point of view, this stateme nt w ould se em to have a “re as o nable tende ncy

to coer ce” an employ ee, se e Da y ton Ne wsp ap e rs , 4 02 F .3 d at 65 9, a s it sug g ests that bonuses would not be for thcoming in the e vent of unionization. 5 F or its pa rt , CB C argues th a t H e nr y ’s state me nt i s p ro te c te d und e r s e c tio n 8 (c ) o f t he Ac t, 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). Althoug h section 8(c ) per mits an employ er to c ommunicate non -t h re at ening predic tions about the conseque nces of unioniz ation, such pre dictions “must be car efully phrase d on the basis of objec tive fac t to convey an employ er’ s belief as to demonstrably probable conseque ncesN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

34 bey ond his control.” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. , 3 95 U. S. 5 75 , 6 18 (1 96 9) ; ac c or d I nd ian a Ca lPro, Inc. v . NLRB , 863 F.2d 1292, 1298-99 (6th Cir. 1988). The recor d is devoid of any sug g estion that Henr y ’s statement re g ardingthe loss of C h ri s t m as b o nuses had a ny objective f

actua l basis. L ikewise, CBC’s related argument—that Henr y ’s use of the conditional “could” rathe r than
an unconditional “would” rende rs the statement lawful—is untenable. First, this “could” / “would” distinction appears to have bee n re j ec t ed by the B oard. See M

ed
. Ctr . o f O c e an Cou nty , 315 N.L .R.B. 1150, 1154 (1994). I n Medic al Center , th e B oa rd a do pte d th e AL J’s f

ind ingthat a
su pe rv iso r’ s st a te me nt t o a

n e mpl oy e e that he “ c ou ld los e [his ] be ne fi ts” wa s an unla wf ul t hr e a t in violation of sec t i o n 8 (a) (1), whe re, inte r a lia , th e re wa s n o “ su g g e sti on that th e los s o f b e ne fi ts which ‘c ould’ result wa s to be derive d from neg otiations in t he g ive- an d -t ak e of c ollective barg aining .” Id. I n th e ins tant c a se , H e nr y ma de no su c h s ug g e sti on . Mo re ov e r, a s th e F if th C ir c uit ha s n ot ed in respo ns e to a sim ila r a rgume nt, ult imate ly , “ the pe rm iss ibi lity of [the c omp any ’s ] predic tions necessa

rily turns on whether they wer e based on objective f act a nd adequately

conveyed probable conseque nces bey ond the [ c]ompany ’s control,” not on whether

the pre dictions spoke of “possibility ” rather than “ probability .” Te lle ps e n P ipe lin e Se rv

s. v. NLRB , 32 0 F .3 d 55 4, 56 3 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( i mp l i ci t l y

re j ec t i n g CPP Pinkerton , 309 N.L .R.B. 723 (1992), a case heavily

relied upon by CBC). Thus, the B oard’ s co n cl u s i o n that Henr y ’s comment violated the A ct is supported by substantial evidence
. B. Additionally , the Board adopted t he AL J ’s determination that supervisors J ames Ke ller and Dennis He rod unlawf

ully threatened plant c losure in the eve nt of unioniz ation. I t is well establishedN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

CBC also brief

ly asser ts, citing no authority , that “Ke ller’s stateme nt amounted to nothing 6 mor e tha n h is o pin ion

a bo ut t he c on se qu e nc e s o f u

nio nizatio n. ” Ag a in, a s d isc us se d a bo ve , w hil e an employ er ma

y make pr edictions about the e ffe cts of u n i o n i z ation, such pre dictions “must be c are fu lly ph ra se d o n the ba sis of ob je c tiv e fa c t to c on ve y an emp loye r’ s bel ie f as to d e mon str a bly probable conseque nces be y ond his control.” Gissel Pack ing Co. , 395 U.S. at 618. Keller ’s opinions do not fall within the permissible cate g ory of “c are fully

phrase d” pre dictions. 35 that th re a ts o f p lant c los ur e , b e ing“am on g the mos t f la g ra nt o f u nf a ir la bo r p ra c tic e s, ” vio late section 8(a )(1) of the Ac t. In dia na Cal-Pro , 863 F.2d at 1301 (citation and quotation m arks omi tte d) ; se e als o V &S Pro Ga lv , 168 F.3d at 279. Acc ording t o Tee g ardin’s te stimony , in J une 2002, he w itnessed a mee ting be ing he ld by Keller , a mec hanic’ s supervisor, duringwhich Ke ller informe d five mechanics that the Union was g o i n g t o c a

u s e C B C t o l o s e c o n t r a c t s w i t h N a b i s c o an d f o r c e t h e c o mp an y i n t o b a n k ru p t c y. Tee g ardin fur

ther re ported that, on a

regular basis in J une 2002, Ke ller would “holler ” in the production ar ea that the Union would cause the plant to lose contra cts and close. When CBC ca lled Keller as a wi tness, Keller was a sked a se ries of le ading questions, to which he g ave yes or no
answe rs, sug g esting that Tee g ardin’s te stimony was fa lse. Noting that the leadingnature of Ke ller’s qu est ion inga llo we d K e lle r t o avo id d ir e c tly a dd re ssi ngTe e g ard in’ s te sti mony , th e AL J cho se to
c re dit Te e g ard in. No tw ith sta nd ingCB C’ s a sse rt ion s o the rw ise , th e AL J g a ve a re a so na ble explanation fo r cr ed i t i n g Tee g ardin rather than K eller. Aperusa l of Keller ’s testimony transcr ipt indicates that CB C asked Ke ller ca ref ully cra fted que stions that allowed him to avoid addressing the incident Tee g ardin obser

ved. In light of the strict limit ations imposed on appellate courts re viewing ag ency cre dibilit y

deter minations, see Fluor Danie l , 3 3 2 F
. 3 d a t 9 6 7 , C B C ’ s ar g u m e n tt h a tA LJ
err ed in cr editing T eeg ardin is unper suasive. 6N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

36 T w o w e e k s b e f

o r e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e l e c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o T h o m a s T h o mp s o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y, manag er D ennis Her od initiated a conversation about unioniz ation with Thompson. Her od stated that Appold might start moving production lines out of the McComb f acility to his other fa cilities if the employ ees unionized. The AL J found, and the Boa rd af firmed, that He rod’s thre at/predic tion
o f m o v i n g p r o d

u c t i o nl i n e s o u to f

t h e f a c i l i t y c o n s t i tu t e d

a v i o l a t i o n o f

s e c t i o n8 ( a ) ( 1 )
. T h e A LJ noted that he cr edited Thompson rather than H erod w ho, in response to c are fully cra fted lea ding questions about the i ncident, responded that he “didn’t rec all” telli ng Thompson that the production lines might be move d. Moreove r, as the A L J pointed out, H erod’ s testimony was inconsistent: he first stated th at he did re member the discussion with Thompson about unioni zation, but t hen subsequently

stated that he did not rec all discussing unioniz ation with Thompson at the time. The AL J ’s dec isio n t o cr ed i t Thompson was rea sonable, a nd, acc ording ly , this court must defer to the Boa rd’s a doption of the AL J ’s cr edibility deter mination. CBC’s attempt to classify

this discussion as “nothing more than the free f low of conve rsation betwee n a super

visor and an e mploy ee,” is unpersua sive. As an initial matter, this court has “ found that even when [ ] a threat [of plant closure] is made in a se eming ly lighthea rted fa shion, it st ill rises to t he le ve l of

c oe rc ive be c a

us e , in re a lity , thre a te nin g c omm e nts are of te n co uc he d in

os te ns ibl y friendly or eve n humorous terms.” V &S P ro Ga lv , 168 F.3d at 279. I n any case , there is nothing in the rec ord eve n sug g esting that Her od’s comment wa s made in a friendly or lig hthear

ted manner
. We theref ore c onclude that substantial evidenc e supported the Board’ s finding of a se ction 8(a) (1) violation with respect to He rod’s c omment. C.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

37 The thre at of stricte r discipline in the eve nt of unioniz ation constitutes a violation of section 8(a) (1) of the Act. See G en. Fabrications Corp. , 222 F .3 d at 231
. On June 7, 20 02 , sup e rv iso r B e tty Ger ren told three employ ees w ho wer e discussing the Union in the brea kroom, “You’ d better w atch what y o u ’ r e d o in g . T h e y ’ r e g o in g to g e t to u g h e r o n y o u . I f y o u g e t a U n io n in h e r e , th ey ’ll be watchingy ou.” Thus, the AL J found, and the B oard a g ree d, that CBC violated the Ac t via Ger ren’ s
c omm e nt. CB C’ s o nly

de fe ns e to t

his de te rm inatio n is that Ge rr e n’ s com me nt wa s “ too a mbi g uo us ” to constitute a threat. The case law cited by CBC, howeve r, is not fac tually analog ous to the prese nt situation. See Pea s e C o. v. NLRB , 666 F.2d 1044, 1048 ( 6th Cir. 1981) (finding supervisor’ s statement that “in a couple more months he would not have to hear any g rieva nces” was “ trivial and ambig uous” whe re there was “no backg round of antiunion a nimus by [t he] e mploy er” ). I ndeed, a s the B oa rd no te s, c ourt s h a ve fo un d th a t w or ds sim ila r t o tho se us e d by

Ge rr e n c on sti tut e d thre a ts. See NLRB v. M

cCullough Env’t Serv

s., Inc. , 5 F
. 3 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 0 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c o n c lu d ing that statement that “thing s were g oing to g et a lot toug her a round her e” upon unionization constituted a threat). Given the ve ry

clea r mea ning of Ger ren’s u n co n t es t ed st atement, we conclude that the Boa rd’s de termination of its unlawfulness is supported by substantial evidence
. D. An employ er violate s s ec t ion 8(a)( 1) of the A ct when e mploy ees a re thre atene d with the futility of uni onization. NLR B v . E .I . D uP on t D e Ne mo ur

s , 750 F.2d 524, 527- 28 (6th Cir. 1984) (p e r c ur iam) . In Apr il o r M ay 20 02 , a c c or din g to T y

ro ne Ho lly ’s te sti mony , sup e rv iso r Dia ne Tate tol d h im that th e Un ion

wo uld no t c ha ng e any thi ng a t CBC and

that c omp anie s d oin g bu sin e ss w ith CBC would not do so any longe r. T h e ALJ cr edit ed Holly ’s uncontra dicted testimony and,N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

38 acc ording ly , conclude d that Tate’ s comment violated the Ac t by convey ing to Holly

that supporting the Union would be futil e. As it argued below, CBC sug g ests on appea l that Tate’s c omment was protec ted under section 8(c) of the Act. As pre viously explained, however , section 8(c ) protec tion extends only

when a n employ er’ s predictions ar e “c are fully phrase d o n t h e b asis of objec tive fac t to convey an employ er’ s belief a s to demonstr ab ly probable conseque nces be y ond his control.” Gissel Pack

ing Co. , 395 U.S. at 618. H olly ’s cr edited and unc ontradicte d testimony fails to reve al any suc h o b je c ti v e f a c t u p o n w h ic h T a te ’ s r e ma

r k s mi g h t h a v e b e e n b a s e d , an d , a c c o r d in g ly , the Boa rd’s c onclusion that Tate’ s statements violated the Ac t is supported by substantial evidence
. E. The A L J found, and the Boa rd af firmed, that CB C unlawfully prohibited employ ees f

rom discussing the Union on company time. Where an e mploy er pe rmits the dis cu s s ion of non-workrelated topics on company time, the prohibit i o n of discussion reg ardingunion-related matters on company time c onstitut es a section 8(a) (1) violation. See B randeis Mach. &Supply Co. v . NLRB , 41 2 F.3d 8 22 , 8 33 (7 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Jense n Enters., Inc. , 3 3 9 N
. L
. R
. B
. 8 7 7 , 8 7 8 ( 2 0 0 3 )
. Ho lly testified that, in the spring of 2002, super visor Gar y Birke mey er c alled Holly i n t o his office and informed him, in the pre sence of super visor Denis He rod, that he “ wasn’t supposed to ta lk about the Union on Company

time.” B irkemey er a lso stated that other e mploy ees sa i d t h at Ho l l y was hara ssing them a

bout the Union. The AL J cre dited Holly ’s testimony , as it was not contra dicted by Birke mey er. G iven that CBC does not dispute that it permit t ed empl oy ees to discuss non-w orkrelated topics on com

p a ny time, Holly ’s cr edited testimony provides substantial evidenc e supportingN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

39 the B oard’ s finding that CBC violated the Ac t by prohibiting employ ees from discussing the Union on company

time. F. Th e AL J found , a

nd the B oa rd a g re e d, that CB C vi olate d s e c tio n 8 (a )( 1) of the Ac t w he n it instructed sec urity

g uards to call the police at the first sig n of union ac tivity and by actua lly calling the po lic e to t

he fa c ili ty
. Th re a te nin g to c a ll the po lic e —a nd , o f c ours e , a c tua lly

c a lli ngthe m—t o interfe re w ith lawful u n i o n activity constitutes a violation of the Ac t. Cumberland Farms, Inc. v

. NLRB , 984 F .2 d 556 , 559 (1 st C ir . 1 99 3) ; see also W al-Mart Stores, Inc. v. NLRB , 136 F. App’ x 752, 752-53 (6th Cir. 2005). On May 21, 2002—the first day

that the Union and its supp o rt ers be g an distributing literature in front of the CB C plant—a police off icer arr ived about ten minutes after the handbilling a ctivity

commence d. I nitially , the police of fice r we nt inside the plant. Upon emer g ing from the f

acility , the police office r told the Union supporters a nd a Union re prese ntative that they
wer e violating CBC’s no-solicitation rule. T h e Un i o n repr esentative replied that they wer e not soliciting, but mere ly

trying to or g aniz e a u n i o n . After speakingto CBC supervisors inside the fa c ili ty , th e po lic e of

fi c e r t he n e sse nti a lly

tol d th e m th e y

c ou ld c on tin

ue the ir a c tiv iti e s. Manag er D oug las Be njamin testified that he spoke w ith the security g uard who had ca lled the police. The secur ity

g uard told B enjamin that he ha d been i n s t ructed by his boss to call the po lic e if the re wa s any

sig n o f u nio n a c tiv ity . M ark Wur g e ss, the se c ur ity c hie f, te sti fi e d that he tol d his sta ff , “ if the re wa s a

pr ob le m with tr e sp a sse rs the n Mac omb PD wo uld be the a pp ro pr iate pe op le to c a ll, or if the re wa s any

ty pe of inc ide nt o r s a fe ty

matte r of any

[] co nc e rn

on the str e e t th a t w ou ld
e ff e c t [sic ] the he a lthand we lf are of any pe op le ou t the re . . . b ut n ot f or un ion a c tiv ity , a

bs olute lyN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

40 not.” The AL J cre dited Be njamin’s testimony and discre dited that of Wurg ess, for a number of
re a so ns . T he AL J note d th a t CB C sh ou ld h a ve do ne mor e to rebu t th e gu ard ’s a dmi ssi on to B e n j a m i n , s u c h a s p u t t i n g s o m e o f W u r g e s s ’ s s u

b o r d i n a t e s o nt h e s t an d
. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e A LJ noted that nothing oc curr ed on May 21, other than basic union handbilling ac ross the stree t from the fac ility , that would prompt a g uard to call the police— i.e. , th e re wa s n o “ he a lthor sa fe ty ” inc ide nt. This incident, considere d from the e mploy ees’ point of view, could be deemed to have had a “r easona

ble tendenc y

to coer ce,” Da

y ton Ne wsp ap e rs , 402 F.3d at 659. Wit hin ten minutes of the employ ees’ first attempt at distributing union literatur e, a police man ar rived on the sc ene a

nd informed them that they

wer e violating CBC’s no-solicitation policy ; surely such an inc ident smacks of coe rcion a

nd anti-union hostilit y . CBC, howeve r, asks the c ourt to disreg ard the AL J ’s dec ision to cre dit the double-hea

rsay of B enjamin over

Wurge ss’s direc t testimony that he neve r issued such an instruction. B eca

use an AL J is “not obl ige d to strictly adher e to the Feder al Rules of Evidenc e,” Conley , 5 20 F .3 d at 64 0, the me re fa c t th a t th e AL J may have re lie d u

po n h e ars ay

te sti mony

wo uld
n o tau t o m at i ca l l y

re n d er h i s d ec i s i o nu n re as o n ab l e. R ega rd l es s , as t h e Bo ar d n o t es , t h i s ch al l en ge to the AL J’s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n is likely barr ed by section 10(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), as CBC did not make this hea rsay -base d cre dibilit y

argument in its ex ceptions bef ore the Boa

rd. We thus conclude, on the ba sis of the cre dited t es t i mony of B enjamin, that substantial
ev i d en ce s u

p p o rt s t h e B o ar d ’s fi n d i n g t h at C BC v i o l at edt h e A ct b y ca l l i n g t h e p o l i ce at t h e f

i rs ts i gn of union ac tivity
. G.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

41 On J une 14, 2002, a C BC s ec u rity g uard told Cathy

Hill, who was distributing union literature outside of the fa cility , that she could not disseminate this materia l on CBC proper ty . The AL J found, and the Boa

rd ag ree d, that this discriminatory war ning r eg ardingunion handbilling wa s a violation of sec tion 8(a)( 1) of the A ct. Whil e CB C doe s not dis pu te that suc h a w arn ingg e ne ra lly violates the Ac t, see generally United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. NLRB , 228 F .3 d 772 (6 th C ir . 2 00 0) , it contends that this wa s an isolated incident and ther efor e should be de emed a demi nim is violation of the a ct. As the Board pointed out, howeve r, i t seems difficult to view this vi olation of the Ac t as demi nim is wh e n c on sid e re d in the c on te xt of

CBC’s nu mer ou s o the r v iol a tio ns of the Ac t. T hu s,
we c onclude that the B oard’ s decision is supported by substantial evidence
. H. On or prior

to J une 27, 2002, mana g er Richa rd Quinn appr oache d Hill and Thompson and informed them that he had re ceive d m u l t i p l e co m plaints about them hara ssing pe ople about the Union. Quinn testified that a line supe rvisor, whose na me he c ould not r emember , had re ceive d a
c omp la int fr om a n e mpl oy e e , w ho se name he a lso c ou ld n ot recall
. Qui nn the n p la c e d n e arl y identical notes a

bout this conversation in Hill’s and Thompson’s per sonnel files. These note s, about which neither

Hill nor Thompson were informed, stated that the men we re soliciting employ ees on company time and “a

ny further complaints rec eived will re sult in di sciplinary ac t i o n .” B oth the verba l warnin g and the notes, the AL J found, constituted re straint and coe rcion of H ill’s and Th om ps on ’s se c tio n 7 ri g hts in v iol a tio n o f s e c tio n 8 (a )( 1) of the Ac t. T his de te rm inatio n is
su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l evi de nc e , as the ve rb a l w arn ing s a nd the no te s w ou ld h a ve a

“ re a so na ble tendenc y to coer ce,” se e Da

y ton Ne wsp ap e rs , 402 F.3d at 659.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

42 CBC agues that t he Board did not adopt t he AL J ’s findi ng with respe ct t o the J une 27, 2002,
war nings. We disag ree . Whil e the decision i tself does not addre ss the war nings, the Boa

rd’s orde r
s t at es t h at C BC m u s t“r em o v e f ro m i t s fi l es a n y r e f

e r e n c e s t o t h e u n l aw fu l d i s ci p l i n ary wa rn i n gs issued to . . . Gary

Hill on J une 27, 20 0 2 ; and Thomas Thompson on J une 27, 2002; and within 3 day s notify

eac h employ ee in wr iting that this ha s been done and that the discipline will not be used ag ainst them in a

ny way .” L ikewise, Member Walsh, in his dissent, states that “the major ity finds th a t [ CB C] u n la

w f u ll y is s u e d d is c ip li n ar

y w ar n in g s to
. . . T h o ma s T h o mp s o n [] a n d G ar y H il l[
. ]” As such, we conclude that the Board did, in fac t, adopt the AL J ’s finding with respec t to the Hill and Thompson warning s and, fur thermore , this finding is supported by substantial evidence
. VI . F ina lly , CB C c on te nd s th a t th e B oa rd e rr e d in iss uin g a br oa d re me dia l ord e r, a s we ll as in order ing a new r epre sentation elec tion. This court clea rly lacks jurisdiction over the Boa rd’s orde r requiring t h at a new e lection be he ld. “An orde r setting aside e lections is not ripe for our revie w until subsequent elections ar e held, e ven whe n that order is consolidated with ot her que stions that
are immediately

appea lable.” NLRB v. W ebcor Packaging, Inc

. , 118 F.3d 1115, 1124- 25 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 7 ) ( ci t i n g United States Elec. M otors v. NLRB , 722 F.2d 315, 320 ( 6th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)). I n order to o bta in r e vie w, a n employ e r m us t in ste a d “ re fu se to r e c og nize a su bs e qu e nt, Boa rd-or dere d elec tion on the gr ounds that the elec tion was improper.” Id. at 1125. Additionally , this court lacks jurisdiction to consider w hether the B oard’ s issuance of

a broa d
cea se-a nd-des i s t o rder

was a ppropriate . Section 10(e) of the Ac t prec ludes this court from consideringany

issue not raised in the or igina l proce eding befor e the B o ar d , absent e x traordina ryN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

43 c ir c ums tanc e s. 29 U. S.C. § 1 60 (e ) ( “ No ob je c tio n th a t ha s n ot b e e n u rged befo re the B oa rd , it s member, a g ent, or a g ency , shall be consider ed by the cour t, unless the failure or neg lect to urg e such ob je c tio n s ha ll b e e xcu se d b e c a us e of e xtra or din ary

c ir c ums tanc e s. ”); see also Lee v . NLRB , 325 F.3d 749, 752 (6th Cir. 2003)
. CBC claims that it c ould not have objec ted to the issuance of a br oad
c e a se -a nd -d e sis t or de r be fo re the B oa rd be c a us e the AL J nev e r r e c omm e nd e d s uc h a n o rd e r. Th is
asser tion is patently

inacc urate . I n the re medy portion of his decision, the AL J stated: Be cause of [C BC’s] eg reg ious and widespre ad misconduct, de monstrating a g ener al disreg ard for the employ ees’ fundame ntal rig hts, I find it ne cessa ry to issue a broa d Orde r re quiring [C BC] to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on the rig hts gua rante ed employ ees by

Section 7 of the Ac t. Hickm ott Foods , 2 42 NL RB 1357 (1979). Th e re c omm e nd e d o rd e r i tse lf is a lso c le arl y

a br oa d c e a se -a

nd -d e sis t or de r; it state s that CB C sh a ll
cea se-a nd-desist fr o m, inte r a lia , “In any other manne r interf

eringwith, restra ining, or coer cing
e mpl oy e e s in

the e xer c ise of

the ri g hts g ua

ra nte e d th e m by

Se c tio n 7 of

the Ac t.” Th is l angua g e is almost ide ntical to tha

t ide ntified as a “ broad or der” in Hickm ott Foods , 242 N.L .R.B. 1357, 1357 (1979). Thus , CB C w a s c le arl y on no tic e that th e AL J had

re c omm e nd e d a

br oa d o rd e r a

nd , h a d it wished to do so, it could have e x cepte d to the issuance of a broa d order . Moreove r, the B oard’ s decision itself belies CB C’s argument. The B oard e x plained, “Cha irman B attista an d Member Walsh adopt the judge ’s rec ommended broad cea se-a nd-desist order , to which no exceptions were filed.” A ccor dingly , it is apparent that CB C could have ex cepte d to the broad c ease -and- desist order
re c omm e nd e d b y

the AL J, bu t c ho se no t to do so . We thu s la c k ju ri sd ic tio n to c on sid e r t

his argument. VI I.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

44 For the fore g oing r easons, we enfor ce the Boa rd’s order in its entirety . Fur

thermore , we de ny the motions to st rike the U nion’s brief.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

45 Law rence P . Zat kof

f, District Judge , c onc ur r ing
. Iwrite sepa rate ly beca use, althoug h I
concur in the ultimate result, Irespe ctfully disag ree with the majority ’s finding s reg ardingfour of the alleg ed violations of sec tion 8(a)( 1). First, the AL J and the B oard de termined tha t CBC preside nt J ames Appold made ina pp ro p r i a t e c o mm e nts in v iol a tio n o f s e c tio n 8 (a )( 1) . App old tol d e mpl oy e e s th a t “ wh e n you be g in to barg ain y ou start from zero, you don’t start fr om where y ou’re at and ba rg ain. For

war d, from that point y ou start with a cle an slate.” One of Appold’s employ ees, Ty rone Ho l l y , explained that Ap po ld d e sc ri be d th e sit uatio n a s o ne of

“ g ive and

take ” and

fu rt he r i nd ic a te d th a t pr e vi ou sly
e njo y e d p e rk s su c h a s turk e y s, hams, and th e coo ki e bo x wou ld p ro ba bly dis a pp e ar. Ap po ld a lso
a lle g e dly sh owed emp lo y e e s p ic tur e s o f v and a lis m at th e fa c ili ty and a ttr ibute d th e va

nd a lis m to
un ion su pp or te rs . T he AL J di scr edit e d mu c h o f H oll y ’s te sti mony be c a us e it w a s d ir e c tly contra dicted by

another employ ee. H olly ’s st at ements relaying A ppold’s comments on the bargainin g pr oc e ss, ho we ve r, we re fo un d to be c re dib le be c a us e , a c c or din g to t

he AL J, tho se statements wer e not “dire ctly ” contr adicted by another employ ee. The law fulness of state ments reg ardingthe nature of the barg aining proce ss depends on the context in which they

are made. Somerset W

el d i n g & Steel, Inc

. , 314 N.L .R.B. 829, 832 (1994)
. Em plo y e rs may

no t make state me nts “ in a c oe rc ive c on te x t or in a

mann e r d e sig ne d to c on ve y to
e mp lo y e e s a

thr e a t t h a t t h e y w il l b e d e p r iv e d

o f e xis ti n g b e n e f

it s if th e y v o te f o r th e u n ion.” Id. Employ ers may

otherwise state t heir “side of t he case” ag ainst unioniz ation. Id. The propr iety of employ er state ments often tee ters on a f ine line, espe cially

when c onsidering the var iety o f s u b je ctive interpre tations that any

g iven statement mig ht evoke. Stating that barg aining will start from scratch,N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

46 in and of itself, does not rende r an employ er’ s comments improper. I n this case, the A L J deter mined that Appold’s comments wer e coerc ive and improper ba sed larg ely on the testimony

of an individual wh om t he AL J disc re dit e d o n oth e r matte rs be c a us e his te sti mony wa s dir e c tly c on tr a dic te d. De sp ite Ho lly ’s inc re dib ili ty

on oth e r ma tte rs , the po rt ion of his te sti mony

re g ard ingAp po ld’ s c omm e nts was not discre dited beca

use it was not “dire ctly ” contra dicted. Although the majority makes a strong
case for a ffirmingthe AL J and the B oard, I would hold that this allege d violation is not supported by substantial evidence
. Se c on d, the AL J and

the B oa rd found th at Sus an H e nr

y ma de ina pp ro pr iate c omm e nts in violation of section 8(a) (1). Henr y , a line supervisor, asked a pro-union employ ee: “ [A] re you telling thes e p eo p l e that they

could lose their Christmas bonus[? ]” The majority observe s that “[c]onsi deringthis stateme nt from an e mploy ee’ s point of view, this statement would seem to have a ‘r easona ble tendenc y

to coer ce’ an employ ee.” Although the employ ee to whom H enry spoke wa s ret ir ed, th e ma

jor ity ’s po sit ion

is b ols te re d b y

the fa c t th a t th e “ state me nt w a s a pp are ntl y made within earshot of a

curr ent employ ee.” As with any elec tion, eac h side must have the oppor tunity to argue its position and observe the shortcoming s of its opponents. I n the context of union elections, employ ers have a rig ht “to point out . . . the adverse c onsequenc es of unionization.” NLRB v. Village IX, Inc

. , 723 F.2d 1360, 1367 (7th Cir. 1983). Her e, Henr y asked a retire d pro-union employ ee about a potential outcome of the union election. When employ ment barg aining beg ins anew , as i t does when a union is elec ted, any
numbe r o f p os sib ili tie s ma y re su lt, inc lud ingthe los s o f c e rt a in b e ne fi ts a s w e ll a s th e g a in o f c e rt a in oth e r b e ne fi ts. De sp ite t he g uid anc e of re late d d e c isi on s f

or e mpl oy e rs to f

ra me the ir state me ntsN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

47 car efully to avoid coer cion, the leg itimacy of dra winga “c ould/woul d ” dis tinction for employ er
s p e e c h i s u n c l e ar . T h e m a j o r i t y i n t e rp re ts Me dic al C

e nte r o f O c e an Cou nty , 315 N.L .R.B. 1150, 1154 (1994), a s eliminating the impact of the c ould/would dist inction. The Me dic al C e nte r opinion involved a number of circ umstances that led to the B oard’ s decision, including that the conve rsation at issue occ urre d “in the pre sence of a one -on-one conver sation behind closed door s at the summons and instance of the supervisor, and in the absenc e of a ny sug g estion that the loss of benef its which ‘could’ r esult was to be de rived fr om neg otiations in t he g ive-a nd-t ak e of collec tive barg aining .” Id. The Me dic al C

e nte r de c isi on a lso inv olv e d the su pe rv iso r’ s c omm e nt t

hat e mpl oy e e s c ou ld l os e “just about ever

y thing.” I am of the opinion that the unde rlying c ircumstance s of Medic al Center differ from those pre sent in this case and do not g ive rise to a bla nket aba ndonment of the “ could / would” distinction. W ithout more, I would hold that Henr y ’s comments are permissible and do not constitute a violation of sec tion 8(a)( 1). Third, the AL J and the Boa rd concluded t hat s upervisor J ames Ke ller unlawf ully threatened plant closure in the e vent of unionization. This finding rests almost e ntirely on the observa tion that “CBC a sked Keller car efully cra fted questions that a llowed him to avoid addre ssing the incident.” Al tho ug h s tr ic t li mit a tio ns g ov e rn a pp e llate c ourt

re vie w o f a g e nc y

c re dib ili ty deter minations, the ag ency ’s cr edibility deter minations must have a rational basis. See, e .g. , Fluor Daniel, Inc . v. NLRB , 332 F.3d 961, 967 (6th Cir. 2003)
. L eadingquestions have oc casiona lly been considere d in cre dibilit y

deter minations, but t hey

g ener ally operate as e nhancingfac tors to other evidenc e supp o rt i n g i n credibilit y . See, e .g. , NLRB v. Tecme c, Inc

. , No. 92-5550, 1993 U.S. App. L EXI S, at *15–16 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 1993) (“ [T] he AL J discussed the ‘le ading questions’ at the e ndN

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

48 o f his analy sis as a consider ation ‘in addition to [ other] circumstanc es.’” ). Our le g al procee d i n gs
a f f o r d t h e o p p o rtu n i t y f

o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o ni no r d e r t o i l l u m i n a t e f

a c t s an d w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y. Given the crede nce affor ded age ncy cre dibilit y deter minations, I understand the majority ’s position. I n th e a bs e nc e of oth e r i nc re dib le e vid e nc e , h ow e ve r, I a m he sit ant to a ff ir m a fi nd ing that a

wi tne ss is incredible ba sed solely on the nature of the que stions posed. F ina lly , th e AL J and the B oa rd de te rm ine d that B e tty

Ge rr e n ma de ina

pp ro pr iate c omm e nts in violation of section 8(a) (1). Gerre n, a supervisor, told employ ees w ho wer e discussing the union: “You’ d better w atch what y ou’re doing. T hey ’re g oing to g et toug her on you. I f y ou g et a Union in here , they ’ll be watchin g y o u .” The “ver y clea r mea ning” of Ge rre n’s words, a ccor ding to the majority , is threateningin nature. As observe d by

the majority , courts have found that “wor ds simil ar to those used by Ger ren constituted threats.” See, e .g. , NLRB v. McCullough Env’t Se rvs., Inc

. , 5 F.3d 923 ( 5th Cir. 1993). The McCullough co u rt , h o we v er , fo u n d t h at “[ s ] u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce s u

p p o rt s t h e N L R B’ s fi n d i n gs that McCullough violated § 8(a)( 1) by thr e ate nin g its e mp loy e es with e c on om ic re pr isa ls for

the ir union activities .” Id. a t 93 0 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . H e re , G e rr e n ma de no thr e a ts of e c on omi c re pr isa l. A l t h o u g h h e r

s t a t e m e n t s m ay b e c o n s t r u e d a s w ar n i n g s o f i n c r e a s e d d i s c i p l i n e , t h e y l a c k s p e c i f i c i t y. I t occur s to me that a di ffe renc e ex ists betwee n the s tatement that “[t] hey ’re g oing to g et toug her on y ou” and the statement t hat “a ll privilege s would be cut out.” See id. Although the majority ’s int e rp re ta tio n o f r e late d c a se law i s a re a so na ble on e , I be lie ve th at Gerre n’ s c omm e nts in t his instance a

re too broa d to be consider ed thre ateningand should not be consid ere d a violation of section 8(a )(1)
.N

L R B v . C o n so l. B isc u it, 0 6 -2 0 3 8 e t a l.

49 Employ er a

nd employ ee be havior c o n d u ct ed i n the midst of union elections falls under a
c a uti on ary le ns . But it mus t be co ns ide re d that ele c tio ns of any natur e re qu ir e op e n a dv oc a c y fo r a ll pa rt ie s. I n the un ion -e le c tio n co nte xt, thr e a te nin g wo rd s and a c tio ns mus t not be tol e ra te d; y e t, t he ir pr oh ibi tio n mu st n ot b e so e xpans ive a s to limit the a bil ity of an emp loye r to state its c a se a g a ins t
un ion iza tio n. Th e fo re g oin g ins tanc e s h ig hli g ht t he dif fi c ult natur e of c a se s su c h a s th e se . B e c a us e of the diff iculties that arise in disting uishing threat f rom predic tion a

nd possibili ty , Iwould hold that unless clea

rly and ex plicitly constituting a threat of reprisal, an employ er’ s words re g ardinga union elec tion do not viol ate the A ct.