Opinion ID: 509502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reading Order

Text: 16 Intervenor Monfort contends that the Board erred in ordering Kenneth Monfort personally to read the Board's notice to assembled employees because such a reading is punitive in nature and does not effectuate the goals of the Act. We are not unconcerned about [t]he ignominy of a forced public reading by an employer and its potential for oppression. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers v. N.L.R.B., 383 F.2d 230, 234 (D.C.Cir.1967). Indeed, we have stated previously that we will not enforce such orders when the record fails to indicate particularized need for the order. Teamsters Local 115 v. N.L.R.B., 640 F.2d 392, 403 (D.C.Cir.1981). But in the case at bar we are convinced that the record indicates that such a particularized need does exist and that the reading is necessary to dispell the atmosphere of intimidation created in large part by [intervenor's] own statements and actions. Conair, 721 F.2d at 1386-87. 17 The Teamsters and Conair cases set the parameters for when a personal reading order like the one at issue in this case will be enforced. In Teamsters, we declined to enforce such an order. In that case, the record did not indicate that substantial links existed between the particular employer ordered to read the notice and the labor law violations committed. We noted that [o]f all the unfair labor practices found by the Board, the only one personally performed by [the employer] was his promise of benefits as an inducement to avoid the Union. Teamsters, 640 F.2d at 403. In light of the tenuousness of the link, we found that the lack of particularized need may create the misimpression that the Board is seeking to punish an uncooperative respondent, and concluded that the hardship [of the order] outweighs the benefit ... Id., 640 F.2d at 403. In Conair, decided two years later, this court did enforce a personal reading order. We noted in Conair that the record indicated that the employer who was the subject of the order personally and repeatedly communicated to employees the threats that were found to be violations of the Act. Conair, 721 F.2d at 1386. Because of this pervasive personal involvement, we found that the order was justified. Id. 18 Kenneth Monfort's actions more nearly resemble those of the subject of the order in Conair; the record indicates a pervasive personal involvement on his part that supports the Board's order. Monfort was involved in a large number of the violations for which the company was cited. He gave several speeches to employees threatening plant closure; he threatened employees with delay or loss of their bonuses on more than one occasion; he promised to visit the plant once a month to listen to employee grievances if they voted down the union; and after the election, he made a speech announcing the retention of the bonus that the ALJ found to be unduly coercive. Monfort's personal involvement with the violations was such that the Board could well have concluded that only a personal reading by him would dispel the atmosphere of intimidation created in large part by [his] own statements and actions ... Id. at 1387. 19 National labor law has undergone many changes from the early days of the Wagner Act. Throughout this period, courts have acknowledged the broad remedial discretion that the Board must have to effectuate the policies of the statute. Such discretion makes it difficult to provide bright-line limits on the remedies that the Board can utilize. As the decisions of this court in Teamsters and Conair demonstrate, unique and specific facts of a case will more often than not provide the measure that allows a remedy in one case and precludes it in another. Such are the vagaries of judicial review of the delicate fabric of our national labor law. The decision of the Board is 20 Affirmed.