Opinion ID: 365635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threats to Discontinue Benefits

Text: 158 In NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), the seminal case concerning when an employer's statement concerning the consequences of unionization is proscribed, the Supreme Court formulated a prediction vs. threat test. 159 Thus, an employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his general views about unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the communications do not contain a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. He may even make a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unionization will have on his company. In such a case, however, the prediction must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control or to convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization. See Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263, 274, n. 20, 85 S.Ct. 994, 13 L.Ed.2d 827 (1965). If there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities and known only to him, the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion, and as such without the protection of the First Amendment. 160 Id. at 618, 89 S.Ct. at 1942. 161 In the first incident involving an alleged threat, employee Young, according to his testimony, was warned by his supervisor, Lynch, that if the UAW won, some of the trainees would lose their jobs because the way the UAW had it set up they had to have one apprentice to four journeymen or something like those numbers. The ALJ found that this remark amounted to a threat to discontinue jobs in the event of a union victory. 162 It is clear from the language of Lynch's statement as well as the context in which it was said that Lynch was warning of possible changes in Delco's training program due to union-imposed conditions beyond Delco's control. As such Lynch's statement constituted a prediction and not a threat. 163 With respect to the second alleged threat, Quality Control Supervisor Kendall warned employee Phillips that if the plant was unionized, he could not come to his office at anytime but rather would have to go through the stewards. The ALJ found that Kendall's remark constituted a threat to discontinue existing Company benefits in the event of a Union victory. 164 In Federal-Mogul Corp. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1978, 566 F.2d 1245, we reviewed a Board order in which a similar statement 9 was found to be a misstatement of the law and a threat by the company to discontinue an existing benefit if the Union won the election. We held that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1255. We observed that an employee's qualified right under Section 9(a) of the Act to take a grievance to his employer was not a company benefit but rather was a benefit conferred by law. 566 F.2d at 1255. Therefore an employer could not discontinue such benefit even if it desired to do so. Id. In addition we noted that the record was devoid of evidence that the employer had ever threatened to cut off any company benefit. 165 Federal-Mogul is controlling. Therefore we must conclude that there is not substantial evidence that Delco, through Kendall, threatened to discontinue an existing company benefit.