Opinion ID: 159879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: President Weber

Text: 56 On March 2, the day following the suspension of Ms. Almy, Mr. Thornton and another employee and the issuance of warnings to two other employees, President Weber convened two plantwide meetings during which she gave similar speeches regarding the union's organizational efforts. As the ALJ noted: 57 She also expressed the view of the Respondent that a union was not necessary or desirable at the facility. Referring to the five disciplined employees, she testified that she told the groups that the Union was supposed to warn employees not to violate the Respondent's no solicitation policy. She therefore concluded, she told employees, so, either the Union failed to warn them or encouraged them to violate the policy. She told the employees that if, in fact, the Union had either intentionally not warned the employees or had suggested that that they engage in activities in contravention of the policy, that would mean that the disciplined employees had been potentially sacrificed by the Union for the benefit of the Union. 58 ALJ Decision at 8. 59 In addition, a few employees recalled that President Weber began the speech mentioning the five employees disciplined for violation of the non-solicitation policy, and also recalled that she mentioned that the Union had sacrificed those employees for their union-related activities. 60 We continue to grapple with distinguishing between an employer's unprotected threats versus protected predictions under Gissell. See 395 U.S. at 617. An employer is free to communicate to its employees any of its general views about unionism or any of its specific views about a particular union, so long as the communications do not contain a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 29 U.S.C. 158(c). In addition, we recognize that [w]ords of disparagement alone concerning a union or its officials are insufficient for finding a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., 305 N.L.R.B. 193, 193 (1991). 61 The dissenting Board member and Webco emphasize that section 8(c)'s protection extends to an employer's characterization of a union that is based on an objective fact, and that employees are capable of evaluating such remarks for themselves. See Order at 5; see also Camvac Int'l, Inc., 288 N.L.R.B. 816, 820 (1988). The dissenting Board member states that, at most, Ms. Weber suggested that soliciting in violation of the no-solicitation rule would lead to adverse employment consequences. Order at 4. 62 Even if Ms. Weber's remarks were meant to be confined to violations of the non-solicitation rule, Webco cannot rely upon its selective enforcement of the non-solicitation policy to justify its threats of further adverse employment consequences. President Weber's statements, unlike the flip and intemperate remarks at issue in In re Sears, Roebuck, 305 N.L.R.B. at 193, went beyond personal opinion. The speech came on the heels of an unprecedented staunch imposition of discipline for union-related violations of the non-solicitation rule. The disciplinary actions taken were severe, and as noted, disproportionate in relation to the violations that actually occurred. We defer to the Board's judgment regarding the coercive nature of the conduct in question, see Gissell, 395 U.S. at 617, and agree that Ms. Weber's statements were made in a particularly threatening context and with a particularly threatening quality. See In re Feldkamp Enters., 323 N.L.R.B. 1193, 1200 (1997) (noting particularly threatening quality of threats of business closure amounted to unlawful intimidation in violation of the Act).