Opinion ID: 2972022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board Opinion

Text: -5- Nos. 03-2540, 04-1010 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers, Inc. v. NLRB The Observer appealed the ALJ’s ruling regarding Section 8(a)(1) to the Board. On September 11, 2003, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s order. The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Observer did not violate the NLRA when it laid Grabda off in December 2001. The panel majority also concluded that the Observer violated Section 8(a)(1) in interrogating Gregway, although it modified the ALJ’s analysis. Instead of applying the Johnnie’s Poultry standard, the Board applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test from Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. 1176 (1984), aff’d sub nom. Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The Board found that Heusel and Gorno asked Gregway questions concerning employees’ union activities as of August 2001, even though the stated purpose for the interview was to defend against Podrasky’s and Egnatowski’s wrongful discharge claim arising out of a 2000 discharge. To remedy the Section 8(a)(1) violation, the Board adopted the ALJ’s recommended order. That recommended order required the Observer (1) to cease and desist its unlawful conduct, and (2) to post copies of a remedial notice informing employees of their rights to organize and of the Board’s decision that the Observer violated the NLRA. Because an additional violation would be cumulative and would not affect the remedy, the Board did not determine the legality of Grabda’s interview. Member Schaumber dissented, arguing that Gregway’s interview was not coercive under the totality-of-the-circumstances test. Member Schaumber disagreed with the majority’s characterization of the facts. The majority found that Heusel and Gorno “repeatedly” asked Gregway about current union activities after finding that they asked her three times. Member Schaumber disagreed that this should be characterized as “repeatedly.”