Opinion ID: 2972022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Place and Methods of Interrogation

Text: The context of the interrogation further supports the Board’s finding that the Observer unlawfully interrogated Gregway. As to this factor, we recognize the Board’s special expertise in determining the “impact of utterances made in the employer-employee relationship.” See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 620 (1969). The Board found that Gregway was a reluctant participant in the interview and had not been an open union supporter. When Gorno called Gregway into her office to schedule the interview, Gregway asked Gorno, “[D]o I have to really do this?” Rather than informing Gregway that her participation was voluntary, Gorno answered, “It’s really no big deal.” Heusel and Gorno interviewed Gregway in a conference room. The Observer contends that the Board erred because Heusel’s and Gorno’s interview did not -14- Nos. 03-2540, 04-1010 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB rise to the level of coercion. However, this argument fails because the existence of coercion in an interrogation is a factual issue entitled to deference. See V&S ProGalv, Inc. v. NLRB, 168 F.3d 270, 279-80 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming the Board’s decision that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and rejecting the employer’s argument that the question did not rise to the level of coercive interrogation); see also Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. NLRB, 984 F.2d 556, 559 (1st Cir. 1993). We have stated that “the Board’s assessment of coercive effect, if reasonable, should be sustained.” NLRB v. Price’s Pic-Pac Supermarkets, Inc., 707 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted). Based upon all of the circumstances of the interview, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the interrogation had a tendency to interfere with Gregway’s protected activity. For the above reasons, we hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the Observer’s interrogation of Gregway violated Section 8(a)(1). D. Johnnie’s Poultry Test The Observer argues that the Johnnie’s Poultry requirements do not apply to this case. In finding a violation of Section 8(a)(1), the Board did not reach the question of whether Johnnie’s Poultry applied because the Observer’s interrogation was unlawful under the totality-of-thecircumstances test. Because we find a violation of Section 8(a)(1) under the totality-of-thecircumstances test, it is also unnecessary for us to decide whether the Johnnie’s Poultry assurances were required. See In re EPI Constr., 336 N.L.R.B. 234, 241 (2001) (finding a violation under the totality-of-the-circumstances test and not determining whether the Johnnie’s Poultry assurances applied). Even assuming that the Observer was correct in claiming that it was not required to provide the Johnnie’s Poultry assurances, the Observer’s interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) because it was coercive under the totality-of-the-circumstances test. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s finding that the Observer’s interrogation of Gregway violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. -15- Nos. 03-2540, 04-1010 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB