Opinion ID: 2977201
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gahman’s Credibility

Text: The second issue on appeal is whether the NLRB erred in concluding that DTR threatened to punish Gahman for his union activities and gave Gahman the impression that he was under surveillance. DTR argues that the NLRB erred because it based its decision solely on Gahman’s testimony—the uncorroborated, biased testimony of a discredited employee. We conclude that the NLRB had substantial evidence in support of its decision. “[T]his Court generally defers to the credibility determinations of the NLRB, particularly where the ‘record is fraught with conflicting 16 Nos. 07-2139/2324 DTR Industries, Inc. v. NLRB testimony and essential credibility determinations have been made.’” ITT Auto., 188 F.3d at 384 (quoting Tony Scott Trucking, Inc. v. NLRB, 821 F.2d 312, 315 (6th Cir.1987)). The ALJ did not rely solely upon Gahman’s testimony in determining that DTR threatened Gahman with punishment for his union activities and gave Gahman the impression that his activities were under surveillance. The ALJ believed that Gahman’s testimony was corroborated by King’s own notes from the meeting with Gahman. According to the ALJ’s decision, King’s notes show that the meeting “was about Gahman’s union activity . . . creating the impression of surveillance.” J.A. at 27 (ALJ Dec. at 27). Furthermore, the ALJ observed that there were other supervisors at the meeting between Gahman and King, yet “[n]one of these other supervisors were called by [DTR] to corroborate King’s testimony.” Id. Thus, there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ and NLRB’s conclusion. The fact that Gahman was separately found to have submitted a fraudulent drug sample does not mean that the ALJ and NLRB cannot find him credible as to other issues. The ALJ has the ability to credit parts of a witness’s testimony, even when discrediting other parts of the testimony. Carrier Corp. v. NLRB, 768 F.2d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1985). Given our level of deference for ALJ and NLRB credibility determinations, we conclude that there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ and NLRB’s conclusion that DTR threatened to punish Gahman for his union activities and gave Gahman the impression that he was under surveillance.