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

Heading: Solicitation of Employees to Campaign Against the Union.

Text: 153 Employers are entitled to oppose unionization. Sturgis Newport Bus. Forms, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 563 F.2d at 1257. Section 8(c) of the Act similarly provides that the expressing of any views, argument, or opinion . . . shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. On the other hand, Section 7 of the Act provides that employees have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 157. An employer who shall interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, are guilty of a § 8(a)(1) violation. 154 According to employee Young, his supervisor, Lynch, had asked him if I would talk to some of the people that I had talked to about signing a Union card. Phillips similarly testified that Supervisor Johnson had asked him to talk to my brother, about, you know, not voting for the union. The ALJ concluded that these two acts of solicitation constituted a violation of Section 8(a) (1). The ALJ did not explain how he reached this conclusion. The Board, in affirming the ALJ's decision, did not attempt to justify the ALJ's conclusion in this respect. 155 Delco argues that under the same analysis we just conducted with respect to interrogation it must be concluded that Delco's solicitation was not proscribed by the Act. The analysis referred to was developed in the context of employer interrogation of employees. See, e. g., NLRB v. Varo, Inc., supra, 425 F.2d at 298; NLRB v. Camco, Inc., supra, 340 F.2d at 804; Bourne v. NLRB, 2 Cir. 1964, 332 F.2d 47, 48; Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591 (1954). Strictly speaking, the remarks immediately under consideration are requests and not interrogatories. This, however, is a distinction without a difference. In NLRB v. Sunnyland Packing Company, 5 Cir. 1966, 369 F.2d 787, we undertook a balancing approach similar to the one presently under consideration, with respect to acts of threats and solicitations as well as to acts of interrogation. 369 F.2d at 789-90, Relying upon Camco, Inc., supra, 340 F.2d at 804-07. Applying this analysis to the facts presented in the case Sub judice we conclude that Delco's acts of solicitation were not violative of Section 8(a)(1). We reach this conclusion on the basis of the reasons previously discussed with respect to our conclusion that Delco did not impermissibly interrogate its employees. See 1309-1311, Ante. 156 Neither Independent, Inc. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 203 nor Hendrix Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir. 1953, 321 F.2d 100, upon which the Board and the Union now rely, offers any solace to their position that the isolated instances of solicitation under consideration were impermissible. In Independent, Inc. we observed that there was abundant evidence . . . that the company waged an aggressive campaign both to entice employees to side with the company and to frighten employees away from the blandishments of the Union. 406 F.2d at 205. Similarly in Hendrix Mfg. Co., which was decided prior to Sunnyland Packing Company, we held that the Board could find impermissible the acts of employer solicitation (A)s a part of the whole pattern and practice which included unlawful interrogation, threats of economic reprisals, promises of benefits to influence employee sympathies, and creating an impression of surveillance among the employees. 321 F.2d at 106. We expressly eschewed making a hard and fast ruling and content ourselves merely with saying that in these circumstances it was a permissible element of the cease and desist order. Id. 157 Enforcement therefore is denied with respect to that part of the Board order based upon a finding of unlawful solicitation.