Opinion ID: 12483
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conduct Preceding Election

Text: The Board found that prior to holding the decertification election Eljer engaged in acts and conduct violative of section 8(a)(1) of the Act through coercive and threatening pre-election statements and by way of promises of benefits made to influence the outcome of the election. It specifically found that Eljer threatened its employees with negative consequences and unspecified harm if they voted for continued representation by the union; promised employees a retroactive wage increase and a plan for handling their complaints, and implicitly promised a pension plan if employees did not select the union; and stated to employees 7 that the union had prevented them from receiving a pay raise. Eljer argues that the Board erred, contending that the campaign statements were neither coercive nor threatening, and that its statements and bulletin board postings constituted protected free speech under section 8(c) of the Act. Under section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it is an unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [section 7 of the Act]. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). At the same time, section 8(c) of the Act provides that an employer has the right to express any views, argument, or opinion so long as such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). The Supreme Court has noted that section 8(c) manifests a congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management, Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., 383 U.S. 53, 62, 86 S.Ct. 657, 663, 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966), while at the same time does not serve this interest by immunizing all statements made in the course of a labor controversy, Id. at 63 n. 5, 86 S.Ct. at 663 at n. 5.
In analyzing an employer's statements for promised benefits, there is no requirement of an express statement that particular benefits would be given in exchange for a vote to decertify. Dow Chem. Co., Texas Div. v. NLRB, 660 F.2d 637, 644 (5th Cir.1981). Instead, the Act is violated by statements from which promises may reasonably be inferred. Id. 8 The Board found that Eljer promised the Union employees a retroactive wage increase and a plan for handling their complaints, and implicitly promised them a pension plan if they did not select the Union. As to the Board's determination regarding whether a plan for handling employee complaints was promised as a benefit, the plant manager prefaced his statement on that issue—that without a union, he would discuss with employees the development of a plan for handling complaints—with a clear disclaimer that it would be illegal to promise that there would be an employee committee to review complaints. In addition, the plant manager set forth no specific grievance procedure. The Board was unreasonable in its determination that such constituted an inferable promise of a grievance or complaint procedure. With respect to the Board's finding that Eljer made an implied promise that it would provide each employee with a 401(k) savings plan, the Board was also unreasonable. While the plant manager stated that every employee not represented by the Union has a 401(k) plan, he also stated that I cannot promise that there will be a 401(k) plan in this plant if the Union is voted out. It would be illegal for me to promise that. The statement regarding the unrepresented employees' 401(k) plan was a protected statement of fact which was followed by an overt disclaimer of any promise. Section 8(c) of the Act is completely devoid of meaning unless it permits an employer to portray its practice with respect to its unrepresented employees so that they could decide whether 9 they wanted to secure unrepresented status. Dow Chem., 660 F.2d at 644.
The Board found that Eljer's comment that the Union had prevented the employees from receiving any pay raise was a violation of section 8(a)(1) of the Act. While immediately preceding the election, the plant manager stated and posted the company's position that without the union, Eljer could implement a pay raise, the Board was unreasonable in regarding such as an implied promise of a benefit. The statements regarding a pay raise related to a statement of the recognized fact that Eljer had made an offer of a wage increase, to which the union had not agreed. Section 8(c) protects the right of an employer to make truthful statements of existing facts. Dow Chem., 660 F.2d at 644. In addition, the plant manager later stated that he could not promise any retroactivity if the Union is voted out.
An employer violates section 8(a)(1) when the employer's questions, threats or statements tend to be coercive. NLRB v. Brookwood Furniture, Div. of U.S. Indus., 701 F.2d 452, 459 (5th Cir.1983). The coercive tendencies of an employer's conduct must be assessed within the totality of circumstances surrounding the occurrence at issue. Id. An unlawful threat is established if, under the totality of the circumstances, an employee could reasonably conclude that the employer is threatening economic reprisals if the employee supports the union. Id. at 459. Given 10 the totality of Eljer's statements and the surrounding circumstances, the Board's determination that Eljer threatened its employees with retaliation if they selected the union as their representative was unreasonable. While Eljer stated that there would be negative consequences to voting for the union, the plant manager also communicated to employees that each employee was entitled to his opinion and that one's vote would not result in retaliatory discrimination. There is no surprise in Eljer's expressed desire for the union's decertification and there were no accompanying campaign statements that would imbue Eljer's predictions of negative consequences with a more sinister meaning. See Dow Chem., 660 F.2d at 644.
Finally, we note that our conclusion that the Board was unreasonable in the above recited unfair labor practices findings derives from the context of this representation election. This union had represented these employees for many years so that the employees were familiar with and well-informed of the union's and management's spokespersons, as well as what those parties had provided and could be trusted to provide (or not to provide) in the future. This decertification election of a long-time union bargaining agent was, of course, a situation distinct from a first-time election to unionize an employer.