# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 14 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tsch ig gf rie Pro pe rti es , Ltd

.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 21 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Tsch ig gf rie Pro pe rti es , Ltd

.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

v.

Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

__ __ __ __ __ __ Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re BENTON, KELL Y, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Tsch ig gf r ie Pro pe rti es , Ltd
., pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of th e Nati on al Lab or R e l a t io ns Bo ard ’s fin di ng s th at it vi ol at ed se ct io ns 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Act, 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ). Se e Tsch i g g f r i e Pr o p s., Ltd

. , 36 5 NLRB No. 34
, 20 17 W L 68 05 06
, at *1 -2 (2 01 7)

. The Bo ard se ek s to en fo rce al l of it s or de r. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 29 U.S.C. § 16 0( f), th is co ur t pa rtl y en fo rces th e o rd er an d re m an ds for fur th er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

I n May 20 15
, Tsch ig gf

rie ’s em pl oyees un io ni zed

. Em

pl oyee Darryl Ga l l e i ni ti at ed th e pr oc es s an d se rv ed as ob se rv er fo r th e un io n el ect io n. He f r e q u e n t l y di sc us se d th e un io n, pr om pt in g so m e em

pl oyees to co m

pl ai n th at he “ ha rras s[ ed ]” th em at wor k. Tsch ig gf

rie ’s la wy er co m

m un ic at ed wit h th e un io n, bu t Gall e di d no t ch an ge hi s be ha vi or

. Tsch ig gf rie ’s pr es id en t de ci de d to is su e Gall e a writ te n warn in g

on Aug us t 17
, 20 15

. It rep rimand ed Gall e “ fo r d i s c us si ng un io n or ga ni zat io na l vi ewp oi nt s wit h fel lo w em pl oyees du rin g wor k ” a nd or de red hi m to “ st op im m ed ia te ly.”

Abo ut si x week s la te r, whi le lo ok in g fo r Gall e at wor k, Tsch ig gf rie ’s m an ag er fo un d Gall e’s la pt op op en to pe rs on al web si te s. He co nf ro nt ed Gall e, who co nf

irmed th e la pt op was hi s bu t de ni ed vi si ti ng pe rs on al web si te s du rin g wor k. Not be li ev in g Gall e, th e m an ag er fir ed hi m on th e sp ot

. Th e m an ag er la te r te st ifi ed th at Gall e’s ha bi t o f sl eep in g o n t he job als o c on tri bu te d t o t he de ci si on to fir e h im

.

The un io n ch arg ed th at th e warn in g an d th e fir in g were un fai r la bo r pr act ic es

. The Bo ard ’s Gen eral Co un se l fil ed a co m pl ai nt an d sc he du le d a he ari ng

. Prep ari ng

-2

-fo r th e he ari ng , Tsch ig gf rie twi ce in te rv ie wed on e of Gall e’s co wor ke rs

. The Bo ard

m ov ed to am en d it s co m pl ai nt to al le ge th a t t h e in te rv ie ws were co erci ve in te rro ga ti on s i n v io la ti on of t he Act.

The ad mi n is tra ti ve la w jud ge fo un d th at th e warn in g an d th e fir in g were vi ol at io ns —b ut no t th e in te rv ie ws. The Bo ard ad op te d th e ALJ’s fin di ng s ab ou t th e

warn in g an d th e fir in g, bu t di sa gr eed ab ou t th e in te rv ie ws, fin di ng th ey al so vi ol at ed th e Act. Tsch ig

gf ri e Pro ps . , 36 5 NLRB No. 34
, a t * 1

- 2

. Tsch ig gf rie pe ti ti on s fo r

rev ie w.

Bec au se Tsch ig gf

rie do es no t co nt es t t he Bo ard ’s fin di ng ab ou t t he warn in g, th is co ur t en fo rces th e pa rts of th e Bo ard ’s or de r ad dr es si ng th at vi ol at io n

. Se e NLRB v. Bo li va r- Tees

, In c. , 55 1 F.3 d 72 2, 72 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ The Bo ard is

en ti tl ed to su m

m ary en fo rcem en t of t he un co nt es te d p or ti on s o f it s o rd er.”) . As fo r th e co nt es te d par ts of th e or de r, th is co ur t enfo rces th em “ if th e Bo ard ha s corr ect ly
ap pl ie d th e la w an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e

reco rd as a who le
, ev en if we m ig ht ha ve reac he d a di ffer en t de ci si on ha d th e m at te r be en be fo re us de no vo .” Co nAg ra Fo od s, In c. v. NLRB , 81 3 F.3 d 10 79
, 10 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Thi s co ur t “ de fer[ s] to th e Bo ard ’s in te rp ret at io n of the [Act ] so lo ng as it is rat io na l an d co ns is te n t w i t h th at la w,” bu t rev ie ws de no vo al l ot he r le ga l

co nc lu si on s. Cel

lu la r Sa le s of

Mo ., LLC v. NLRB , 82 4 F.3 d 77 2, 77 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

II.

Tsch ig gf rie co nt es ts th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng it fir ed Gall e fo r un io n act iv it y in vi ol at io n of sect io n 8(a )(1 ) an d (3 ). Tsch ig gf rie arg ue s it fire d hi m fo r m is us in g it s W i-F i and sl eep in g on th e job

. “ Alt ho ug h an em pl oyer vi ol at es Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) an d (3 ) of th e Act if it di sc ha rg es an em pl oyee fo r en ga gi ng in pr ot ect ed act iv it ie s, ‘em pl oyers ret ai n th e rig ht to di sc h a r g e w o rk ers fo r an y nu m be r of ot he r reas on s

-3

-un rel at ed to th e em pl oyee’s un io n acti vi ti es .’ ” Nich ol s Alum in um , LLC v. NLRB , 79 7 F .3d 54 8, 5 54 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5)
, qu ot in g NLRB v. Tra ns po rt at io n Mg m t. Co rp . , 46 2 U.S. 3 93 , 39 4 (1 98 3)

.

“ The so cal le d W

ri gh t Li ne an al y si s is ap pl ie d whe n an em pl oyer art ic ul at es a faci al ly le gi ti m at e r e a s on fo r it s te rm in at io n de ci si on , bu t th at m ot iv e is di sp ut ed .”
NLRB v. RELCO Loc om ot iv es , In c. , 73 4 F.3 d 76 4, 7 8 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), ci ti ng Wr ig ht Line
, 25 1 NLRB 10 83 (1 98 0)

. The W ri gh t Li ne an al y si s is a bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk :

[T]he Bo ard ’s Gen eral Co un se l m u s t p r ov e “ th at th e em pl oyee’s pr ot ect ed co nd uc t was a su bs ta nt ia l or m ot iv at in g fact or in th e ad ve rs e act io n.”

. . . If, an d on ly if, th e Gen eral Co un se l m eet s th at bu rd en , th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e em

pl oyer to ex on erat e it se lf by sh owi ng th at i t

w o u ld ha ve ta ke n th e sa m e act io n fo r a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at o r y
reas on reg ard le ss of t he em pl oyee’s pro te ct ed act iv it y

.

Nich ol s Al um in um , 79 7 F. 3 d a t 5 5 4 (s om e in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)
, qu ot in g Tra ns

po rt at io n Mg m t. , 46 2 U.S. at 40 1.

The ALJ req ui red th e Gen eral Co un se l to in it ia ll y pr ov e “ un io n act iv it y on th e
pa rt of em pl oyees, em

pl oyer kn owl ed ge of th at act iv it y , an d an ti un io n an im us on th e
pa rt of th e em

pl oyer.” Acco rd in g to th e ALJ, “ th e Gen eral Co un se l do es no t ha ve to
pr ov e a c o n n ect io n be twee n th e an ti un io n an im us an d th e sp eci fic ad ve rs e

em pl o ym e nt act io n.” The Bo ard ad op te d th e ALJ’s an al y si s, rei te rat in g th at th e Gen eral Co un se l’s in it ia l bu rd en ha s no “ ne xu s e le m en t.” Tsch ig gf ri e Pro ps . , 3 65
NLRB N o. 34
, at *1 n.1

. Tsch ig gf rie arg ue s th at th e Bo ard m is ap pl ie d W ri gh t Lin e by al lo win g th e Gen eral Co un se l t o m eet it s in it ia l bu rd en wit ho ut sh owi ng a

co nn ect io n o r ne xu s b et ween an ti -u ni on an im us an d t he fir in g.

-4

-A.

The Bo ard co nt en ds th is co ur t can no t co ns id e r t h e arg um en t, be cau se Tsch ig gf rie di d no t pr es erv e it

. Und er se ct io n 10 (e) of th e Act, th is co ur t can n o t

co ns id er an y “ ob

jecti on th at ha s no t be en ur ge d be f o r e t h e B o a rd

. . . un le ss th e fai lu re or ne gl ect to ur ge su ch ob jecti on sh al l be ex cu se d be cau se of ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces .” § 16 0( e)

. Se e al so 29 C.F.R. § 1 0 2.4 6( b)(2 ), (g ) (2 01 7) (“ Any

ex cep ti on

. . . no t sp eci fic al ly ur ge d sh al l b e d e e m ed to ha ve be en waiv ed

. . . . No

m at te r no t in cl ud ed in ex cep ti on s or cro ss -ex cep ti on s m ay th erea fte r be ur ge d be fo re th e Bo ard
, or in an y fu rth er pro ceed in g.” ). It is no t nece ss ari ly en ou gh to ge ne ral ly

o b je c t to a fin di ng

. “ [T]he Bo ard m us t rece iv e ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e ba si s fo r th e

o b je c t i o n.” St

. Jo hn’s Mer cy Hea lt

h Sys

. v. NLRB , 43 6 F.3 d 84 3, 84 8 (8 th Ci r

. 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ The te st is whe th er th e o bjec ti on , fai rly read
, ap pr is es th e Bo ard th at th e ob jecto r in te nd ed to pu rs ue th e is su e la te r pr es en te d

to th e co ur t.” Id

.

The B o a r d rel ie s on NLRB v. Ch ip ot le Se rv ic es , LLC

. The re, th is co ur t he ld th at it ha d no juri sd ic ti on to ad dr es s th e arg um en t th at th e Bo ard m is ap pl ie d th e Gen eral Co un se l’s in i t i a l Wr i g ht Li ne bu rd en , be cau se th e em pl oyer “ di d no t rai se th is p oi nt be fo re th e Bo ard
, or ot he rwis e co nt es t th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s
ap pl ic at io n of th e W rig ht Lin e st an da rd .” NLRB v. Chi po tl e Ser vs ., LLC

, 84 9 F.3 d
11 61 , 11 62 -6 3 (8 th Cir . 20 17 ).

Bu t Tsch ig gf

rie d id co nt es t th e ALJ’s ap pl ic at io n of th e W ri gh t Li ne st an da rd —s pe ci fic al ly, th e Gen eral Co un se l’s in it ia l bu rd en

. Befo re th e ALJ, Tsch ig gf rie arg ue d t ha t ev en if th e Gen eral Co un se l h ad pro ve n a nt i-u ni on an im us , it was an im

us of Tsch ig gf

rie ’s pr es id en t, no t th e m an ag er who fir ed Gall e. The ALJ’s
op in io n no te d th is arg um en t, res po nd in g th at “ to pr ov e an im us su ffi ci en t to carr y th e
go ve rn m en t’s in it ia l bu rd en , th e Gen eral Co un se l do es no t ha ve to pr ov e a co nn ect io n be twee n th e an ti un io n an im us an d th e sp eci fic ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” Befo re

-5

-th e Bo ard
, Tsch ig gf rie to ok “ ex cep ti on to th e ALJ’s fin di ng th at th ere was su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of an ti un io n an im us to jus ti fy th e sh ift in g of th e bu rd en un d e r t h e W ri gh t Li ne fram ewo rk

. . . .”

Th e Bo ard di rect ly ad dr es se d th e rel ev an t arg um en t in it s op in io n. A t w o

m em be r m ajor it y ag reed wit h th e ALJ, whi le a th ird m em be r arg ue d th at “ th e Gen eral Co un se l m

us t est ab li sh a li nk or ne xu s.” Tsch ig gf ri e Pro ps . , 36 5 NLRB No. 34, at *1 n.1

. True , “ m ere d is cu ss io n o f an is su e b y th e Bo ard do es no t n eces sa ril y pro ve

co m pl ia nc e wit h se ct io n 10 (e).” NLRB v. Mo ns on Truc ki ng , In c. , 20 4 F.3 d 82 2, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (in te rn al qu ot a t i o n marks om it te d)

. Bu t he re, it sh ows th e Bo ard ’s

aware ne ss of th e ba si s fo r Tsch ig gf rie ’s ob jecti on

. Se e Fed

Ex Fr ei gh t, In c. v. NLRB , 81 6 F.3 d 51 5, 52 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ The Bo ard was aware of th e [em pl oyer’s] ch al le ng e .

. . , as sh own by

. . . con cu rri ng st at em en ts att ach ed to th e two su m m ary affi rm an ce or de rs by th e Bo ard .”); NLRB v. Fed Ex Fr ei gh t, In c. , 83 2 F.3 d 43 2, 43 8 ( 3 r d C i r. 20 16 ) (“ Bo ard m em be r Harry Jo hn so n’s co nc ur ren ce

. . . in di cat es [t h e

em pl oyer’s ob

jecti on ] pr ov id ed su ffi ci en t no ti ce of [it ’s] ch al le ng e”). It al so sh ows th at th e Bo ard ha d an “ op po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s” Tsch ig gf rie ’s arg um en t. Se e Mo ns on Truc ki ng , 20 4 F.3 d at 82 6, qu ot in g Loc al 90 0, In t’l Unio n of El ec., R a d io an d
Ma ch. Wo rk er

s v. NLRB , 72 7 F.2 d 11 84 , 1 19 1- 92 (D.C. Ci r. 19 84 ). Cf

. Ma rs ha ll Fi el d & Co

. v. NLRB , 31 8 U.S. 25 3, 25 6 (19 43 ) (s ect io n 10 (e) ado pt s “ th e sa lu ta ry
po li cy

. . . of affo rd in g th e Bo ard op po rtu ni ty to co ns id er on th e m eri ts qu es ti on s to be urg ed up on rev ie w of i ts ord er”)

.

Tsch ig gf rie ’s ob jecti on ap pr is ed th e Bo ard th at it in te nd ed to pu rs ue th e is su e it pr es en ts to th is co ur t. Se e Ma y Dep t. Sto re s Co. v. NLRB , 32 6 U.S. 37 6, 38 6 n.5 (1 94 5) (o bjec ti on th at or de r was “ no t su pp or te d or jus ti fie d by th e re c o r d ” was

su ffi ci en t u nd er t he cir cu m st an ces to pre se rv e a ch al le ng e th at it was o ve rb ro ad ).

-6

-B.

O n th e m eri ts of Tsch ig gf rie ’s arg um en t, th is co ur t’s op in io n in Ni c h o l s Alu min um co nt ro ls

. The re, thi s cou rt reaff irmed th at th e Gen eral Co un se l m eet s its in i t i a l Wr i

g ht Li ne bu rd en on ly if it pr ov es “ th at th e em pl oyee’s pr ot ect ed co nd uc t

was a su bs ta nt ia l or m ot iv at in g fact or in th e ad ve rs e act io n

. ” Nich ol s Al um in um , 79 7 F.3 d at 55 4, qu ot in g Tra ns po rt at io n Mg m t. , 46 2 U.S. at 40 1. Thi s is co ns is te nt wit h th e st at u t o r y r e q u ire m en t th at “ th e Gen eral Co un se l carr ie s th e bu rd en of
pr ov in g t h e e l e m en ts of an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e.” Se e Tra ns po rt at io n Mg m t. , 4 62 U.S. at 4 01
, ci ti ng § 1 60 (c) an d 29 C.F.R. § 1 01 .10 (b)

.

In or de r to m eet th is bu rd en , pr ov in g “ [s ]im pl e an im us to ward th e un io n is no t

en ou gh .” Nich ol

s Al um in um , 7 97 F.3 d at 55 4 (in te rn al q u o t a ti on m ark s om it te d)

. Co nt rary t o th e st an da rd th e Bo ard ap pl ie d he re, th e Gen eral Co un se l m us t pr ov e a

co nn ect io n or ne xu s be twee n th e an im us an d th e fir in g— i.e. , th at th e “ di sc riminat or y

an im us to ward [th e em

pl oyee’s] ‘ pr ot ect ed co nd uc t was a su bs ta nt ia l or m ot iv at in g fact or in ’ [th e em

pl oyer’s] d e c i si on to di sc ha rg e hi m

. . . .” Id
., qu ot in g Tra ns po rt at io n Mg m t. , 46 2 U.S. at 40 1. Se e RELCO
, 73 4 F.3 d at 78 3 (th e Gen eral C o u n s el m eet s it s bu rd en by pr ov in g th at “ th e te rm in at io n was m ot iv at ed by an ti

un io n an im

us ”); NLRB v. Ro ck li ne In du st ri es , In c. , 4 1 2 F .3d 96 2, 96 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (th e Gen eral Co un se l m eet s it s bu rd en by pr ov in g th at “ th e em pl oyer act ed as it di d on th e b a s i s o f a n t i-u ni on an im us ”). “ W hi le ho st il it y to [a] u ni on is a pr op er

an d hi gh ly si gn ifi can t fact or fo r th e Bo ard to co ns id er whe n as se ss in g whe th er th e

em pl oyer’s m ot iv e was di sc riminat or y , . . . ge ne ral ho st il it y to ward th e un io n do es no t it se lf su pp ly th e el em en t of un la wfu l m ot iv e.” Nich ol s Al um in um , 79 7 F.3 d at 55 4-
55 (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l).

“ Bec au se th e Bo ard di d no t ho ld th e Gen eral Co un se l to it s bu rd en of pr ov in g di sc riminat or y an im

us to ward [G a l l e’s] pr ot ect ed co nd uc t was a su bs ta nt ia l or

m ot iv at in g fa ct or in [Tsc hi gg fri e’s] deci si on to di sc ha rg e h im
, . . . we are un ab le to

-7

-en fo rce th e Bo ard ’s or de r” as to th e fir in g. Id

. at 55 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s and ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Rem an d is ap pr op ria te whe re “ th e Bo ard of fers an al te rn at iv e th eo ry on whi ch

to up ho ld it s de ci si on .” Mul ti m ed ia KSDK, In c. v. NLRB , 3 03 F.3 d 89 6, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (en ba nc ), ci ti ng NLRB v. Kent uck y Ri ver Cm ty

. Ca re , In c. , 53 2 U.S. 70 6, 72 1- 22 (2 00 1) an d NLRB v. Hea lt h Ca re & Ret

. Co rp . of Am

. , 51 1 U.S. 57 1, 58 4 (1 99 4)

. Here, th e Bo ard su gg es ts th at th e pr op er b u r de n was m et an d req ue st s

rem an d to ap pl y it in th e fir st in st an ce. Thi s co ur t rem an ds fo r th e Bo ard to ap pl y th e W ri gh t Li ne an al y si s co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n. Se e Bev er ly Ent er s.-M in n. v. N LR B , 26 6 F.3 d 78 5, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (rem an di ng “ in vi ew of th e B o a r d ’s
req ue st ”).

III.

Tsch ig gf rie al so co nt es ts th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng th at it co erci ve ly in te rro ga te d an

em pl oyee in vi ol at io n of th e Act. Sect io n 8( a)(1 ) “ m ak es it an un la wfu l la bo r pr act ic e fo r an em pl oyer to in te rro ga te em

pl oyees in a co erci ve m an ne r whi ch in te rfer es wit h,

res tra in s or th reat en s em

pl oyees’ rig ht of s el f-o rg an iz at io n pr ot ect ed by [t he Act].”
NLRB v. D o u

g l a s Div., Sco tt & Fet

ze r Co

. , 57 0 F.2 d 74 2, 74 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ).
Howev er, “ [t]ha t se c t i o n d oe s no t pr oh ib it al l em pl oyer qu es ti on in g of em pl oyees
reg ard in g un io ni zat io n.” Ba pt is t M e d

. S y s. v. NLRB , 87 6 F.2 d 66 1, 66 5 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 8 9 )

. “ Que st io ni ng whi ch do es no t co erce or res tra in em pl oyees in th ei r rig ht to [en ga ge in pr ot ect ed act iv it y ] is pe rm is si bl e.” Gre at er Om ah a Pac ki ng Co ., In c. v. NLRB , 79 0 F.3 d 81 6, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ). “ [W] he n pr op erl y

ex erci se d it is pr ot ect ed by th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to f r e e d o m o f sp eech
, whi ch is

reco gn iz ed in § 8( c) of th e Act.” Ba pt is t Med

. , 87 6 F.2 d at 66 5, ci ti ng § 15 8( c) (“ The

ex pr es si ng of a ny vie ws, arg um en t, o r op in io n . . . sh al l n ot co ns ti tu te

. . . a n un fai r la bo r pr act ic e

. . . if su ch ex pr es si on co nt ai ns no th reat of rep ris al or fo rce or pr om is e of be ne fit .”).

-8

-To de te rm in e whe th er qu es ti on in g is un la wfu ll y co erci ve , th is co ur t co ns id ers

“ th e to ta li ty of th e[] ci rcu m st an ces .” Se e N LR B v. Loui

si an a Mfg

. Co

. , 37 4 F.2 d 69 6, 7 00 (8t h C ir. 1 96 7) . This co ur t i de nt ifi es fiv e “ im po rta nt ” fac to rs :

a hi st or y of em

pl oyer ho st il it y an d di sc riminat io n, th e na tu re of th e in fo rm at io n so ug ht (e.g
., was th e in te rro ga to r se ek in g in fo rm at io n fro m whi ch he co ul d ta ke act io n ag ai ns t in di vi du al em p l o y ees ), th e id en ti ty of th e qu es ti on er (i.e
., wha t was hi s po si ti on in th e co m pa ny), th e pl ace
an d m et ho d of int erro ga ti on , an d th e tru th fu ln es s of th e rep ly (e.g
., di d th e in te rro ga ti on in sp ire fear lea di ng to ev as iv e an swe rs ).

Ba pt is t Med

. , 87 6 F.2 d at 66 5, qu ot in g Gener al Ther m o, In c. v. N LR B , 66 4 F.2 d
19 5, 1 97 (8t h C ir. 1 98 1)

. Se e Mi dl an d Tr an sp . Co., I

nc. v. N LRB , 96 2 F.2d 13 23
, 13 29 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ we m us t lo o k a t th e su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces , whi ch in cl ud e” the fiv e fact or s)

. “ [T]he rel ev an t qu es ti on is

. . . whe th er th e [q ue st io ni ng ]

reas on ab ly te nd ed to co erce th e em pl oyee n o t to ex erci se hi s rig ht to en ga ge in

co nc ert ed act iv it y .” Gre at er Om ah a , 79 0 F .3d at 8 22

.

Here, th e ALJ lo ok ed to th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d f ou nd no vi ol at io n, b u t t he Bo ard di sa gr eed

. The Bo ard fo un d th e qu es ti on in g pe r se

un la wfu ll y co erci ve be cau se i t was “ in pr ep arat io n fo r an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e he ari ng ” an d Tsch ig gf

rie di d no t ex pr es sl y “ pr ov id e [th e em pl oyee] wit h as su ran ces
ag ai ns t rep ris al s” an d “ in fo rm hi m th at hi s pa rti ci pa ti on

. . . was vo lu nt ary. ” Tsch ig gf ri e Pro ps . , 36 5 NLRB No. 34
, at * 1

- 2

. Th e Bo ard fir st ou tl in ed th es e

“ sa feg ua rd s” in Jo hn ni e’s Pou lt ry Co

. , 14 6 NLRB 77 0, 77 5 (1 96 4)

. The Bo ard ta ke s

a “ br ig ht -li ne ap pr oa ch ” to en fo rci ng th em in cas es of qu es ti on in g in pr ep arat io n fo r

an un fai r la bo r p r a ct ic e he ari ng

. Se e Fr eem an Deco ra ti ng Co

. , 33 6 NLRB 1, 19 (2 00 1)

.

B u t t h i s co ur t ha s ne ve r en do rs ed th is pe r se ru le

. In fact
, th is co ur t d i d n o t

en fo rce t h e B o a r d ’s or de r in Jo hn ni e’s Pou lt ry it se lf. NLRB v. Jo hnni e’s Poul tr y Co

. , 34 4 F.2 d 61 7, 61 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 65 ). Oth er ci rcu it s ex pr es sl y reject th e pe r se ru le

.
-9

-Se e Co op er Tir e & Rub be r Co

. v. NLRB , 95 7 F.2 d 12 45
, 12 56 (5 th Ci r. 19 92 ); A &

R Tra ns p., In c. v. N

LR B , 6 01 F.2 d 31 1, 31 2- 13 (7 th Ci r. 19 79 ); NLRB v. Mo nr oe Tube Co ., In c. , 54 5 F.2 d 13 20
, 13 28 & n

. 1 6 ( 2 d C i r

. 19 76 ). But se e St an da rd

Co os a - Th at cher Ca rp et Y ar n Div., In c. v. NLRB , 69 1 F.2 d 11 33
, 11 41 (4 th Ci r. 19 82 ) (en fo rci ng th e Bo ard ’s a pp l i c a t i o n of th e pe r se ru le ). But cf

. Am al ga m at ed Cl ot hi ng Wo rk er

s of Am

. v. NLRB , 42 4 F.2 d 81 8, 82 5 (D.C. Ci r. 19 70 ) (rec it in g th e Jo hn ni e’s Pou lt ry sa feg ua rd s wi th ap pr ov al ).

The Bo ard arg ue s th at th e sa feg ua rd s “ di sp el th e po te nt ia l fo r co erci on .” Bu t

no t al l u ni on -rel at ed qu es ti on in g is un la wfu ll y co erci ve

. Ba

pt is t M ed

. , 87 6 F .2d at 66 5. The Bo ard ha s no t sh own th at th e fact th at qu es ti on in g oc cu rs in pr ep arat io n fo r

a he ari ng ne ces sa ril y m ak es it un la wfu ll y co erci ve

. Req ui rin g th e sa feg ua rd s as a pe r

se ru le is “ co nt rary to [th e] es se nt ia l st at ut or y pr in ci pl e” th at “ un le ss th e [q ue st io ni ng ] it se lf co erce s an e mp l o ye e no t to ex erci se hi s rig ht s, it is pr ot ect ed by Sect io n 8( c)

an d i s n ot a vi ol at io n o f Sec ti on 8(a )(1 ).” Se e Gre at er Om ah a , 79 0 F .3d at 8 22 -2 3 (rejec ti ng th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng th at qu es ti on in g was ne ces sa ril y co erc i v e b e cau se it

“ co nv ey ed di sp le as ur e wit h [th e e mplo y ee’s] pr ot ect ed act iv it y ”). Cf

. Ro ss m or e Ho us e , 26 9 NLRB 11 76
, 11 77 (1 98 4) (rejec ti ng a ru le th at “ qu es ti on s co nc ern in g

un i o n s ym

pa th ie s” are al way s “ in he ren tl y co erci ve ,” be cau se th e ru le “ co m pl et el y di sr eg ard ed th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng an al le ge d in te rro ga ti on an d ig no red th e real it y of th e wor kp la ce”)
, en fo rc ed su b no m. Ho te l Em

pl oy ees Loc al 11 v. NLRB , 76 0 F .2d 10 06 (9t h C ir. 1 98 5)

.

W hi le th e i n t erro ga ti on st an da rd s in Jo hn ni e’s Pou lt ry are rel ev an t in de te rm in in g whe th er an in te rv ie w was co erci ve , th is co ur t de cl in es to ad op t th em as

a pe r se ru le

. Se e NLRB v. Mi dw es t Ha ng er Co

. & Lib er ty E n g . Co rp . , 47 4 F.2 d
11 55 , 11 61 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 19 73 ) (re c o g n i z i n g t ha t “ in ti m id at io n may

. . . oc cu r” if

em pl oyers i nt erro ga te em

pl oyees wi th ou t m eet in g si m il ar st an da rd s, bu t lo ok in g t o th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces (em ph as is ad de d) ).

-1 0-Ass um in g th is co ur t co ul d en fo rce th e or de r on a to ta li ty-of-t he -ci rcu m st an ces

an al y si s, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce do es no t su pp or t it

. Thi s co ur t “ ex am in e[s ] th e Bo ard ’s fin di ng s m or e cri ti cal ly whe n, as he re, th e Bo ard ’s co nc lu si on s are co nt rar y t o t h e ALJ’s.” Nich ol

s Al um in um , 79 7 F.3 d at 55 3. True , Tsch ig gf rie di d no t co m

pl y wit h

a ll th e Jo hn ni e’s Pou lt ry sa feg ua rd s, an d th e em pl oyee m ay ha ve th ou gh t th a t t h e in te rv ie ws, co nd uc te d by th e m an ag er an d la wy er, were m an da to ry

. Bu t th e
qu es ti on s, in te nd ed to he lp Tsch ig gf rie pr ep are it s de fen se to th e Gen eral Co un se l’s ch arg es , we re m os tl y

ab ou t wh et he r th e em

pl oyee ha d s een Gall e sl eep in g o r us in g hi s pe rs on al co m

pu te r at wor k. As th e A LJ sa id
, th e Gen eral Co un se l pr ov ed on ly th at “ th e su bjec t of un io ns cam e up ” in qu es ti on s ab ou t Gall e di sc us si ng th e un io n at

wor k. The em

pl oyee te st ifi ed th at “ th ey di dn ’t as k m e, bu t I ha d to ld th em ” ab ou t th is is su e. Als o, th e em

pl oyee te st ifi e d h e kn ew he di d no t ha ve to gi ve sp eci fic

res po ns es , di d no t ex pe ct pu ni sh m en t or rewar d ba se d on hi s res po ns es , an d “ ha d

no th in g to li e a b o u t

. ” Thi s qu es ti on in g co ul d no t reas on ab ly te nd to un la wfu ll y

c oe rce th e em

pl oyee. Se e Mi dl

an d Tra ns

p. , 96 2 F.2 d at 13 29 (wh ere a hi g h

- l e v e l of fic ia l que st io ne d an em

pl oyee ab ou t vo ti ng in a un io n el ect io n, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t fin di ng a vi ol at io n be cau se th ere was “ no ev id en ce th at [th e

em pl oyer’s] qu es ti on in g of [th e em pl oyee] in sp ire d fear of rep ris al ” an d th e em pl oyer ha d a “ le gi ti m at e pu rp os e fo r th e co nv ers at io n” ); Ba pt is t Med

. , 87 6 F .2d at 66 5- 66 (s ub st an ti al ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t f in di ng a vi ol at io n fo r “ no nt hr eat en in g”
qu es ti on s to whi ch th e em pl oyee an swe red “ free ly an d ho ne st ly”). Thi s co ur t do es

no t en fo rce th e pa rt of th e Bo ard ’s or de r fin di ng th at th e in te rv ie ws were an un fai r la bo r pr act ic e.

** ** ** *

Tsch ig gf rie ’s pe ti ti on is gr an te d. The pa rts of th e or de r ad dr es si ng th e warn in g

are en fo rced

. The Bo ard ’s fin di ng s ab ou t th e fir in g an d th e in te rv ie ws are se t as id e. The cas e is rem an de d to ap pl y W ri gh t Li ne co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n to de te rm in e whe th er Ts ch ig gf

rie vi ol at ed th e Act in ter m in at in g Gal le

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ -1 1-