Opinion ID: 778104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Discharge of Employees in the Weatherization Department

Text: 19 FiveCAP's weatherization initiative assists low-income residents in minimizing energy costs by inspecting homes and installing energy-saving apparatus. At the time that the Union was conducting its organizational campaign, the weatherization department consisted of five employees: Paula Clark, the director; Tom Belongia, the field supervisor; Dale Smith, the inspector; David Monton, crew leader; and Art Burkel, laborer.
20 On April 28, 1995, the same day of the Union election, Paula Clark resigned, effective immediately. At that time, both Belongia and Burkel were away on sick leave. That same evening, Dale Smith, who was an observer at the Union election, received a phone call from Russell Pomeroy, FiveCAP's fiscal officer. Pomeroy told Smith that because Clark had resigned and Belongia and Burkel were on sick leave, Smith would be temporarily laid off. Smith also received a letter to this effect, dated April 28, indicating that with three out of five employees absent, Smith would be laid off for two weeks or less. Clark testified before the ALJ, however, that upon her resignation she left three weeks worth of scheduled work for both the inspectors and laborers. Smith also testified that he could have performed Belongia's tasks while he was on sick leave. Smith told Pomeroy over the phone that he wished to complete one such outstanding project in order to get paid. After speaking with Trucks, Pomeroy permitted Smith to come in to complete this project. 21 Smith returned to work on May 4 to complete his outstanding project. While he was working on the project, he received a phone call from a woman named Sandra Fraley. Fraley was a friend of Darlene Pietz, a client of FiveCAP. Fraley asked Smith when he would be able to assist Pietz with her weatherization projects. Smith explained to Fraley that he was temporarily laid off and did not know when Pietz's project could be completed. He suggested that Fraley or Pietz call the local FiveCAP contact person or speak with Trucks directly. 22 Later that day, Trucks received a phone call from Lutheran Social Services, indicating that they had received a complaint from Fraley about the timeliness of the weatherization department's work on Pietz's mobile home. Trucks testified that in speaking with Lutheran Social Services, she realized that Smith had violated FiveCAP's confidentiality policy by discussing the business of a client with a non-client. That afternoon, Trucks called Smith into her office and angrily reprimanded Smith for violating FiveCAP's confidentiality policy. Smith asked Trucks if she was going to fire him. Trucks ultimately responded, you are going to be fired, but not right now. Smith and Trucks continued to angrily exchange words, and Smith continued to ask if he was fired. Trucks ordered Smith to leave the building; when he refused, Trucks ordered her secretary to call the police. Smith then left, telling Trucks that he would be in touch with her in the form of a lawsuit. 23 That same day, Trucks sent Smith a letter indicating that he had been terminated because of his behavior in their meeting. She testified that she did not have any intention of discharging Smith when she called him into her office, but his conduct during their meeting was inappropriate and merited termination. 24 Mindful of the factors relevant to a finding of anti-union animus, we find that substantial evidence exists to support the Board's determination that the layoff and subsequent firing of Smith was unlawful. Smith was known by Trucks to be an avid supporter of the Union: he testified at the representation hearing and also observed the Union election that took place the same day he was laid off. The Board appropriately found suspicious the haste with which Smith was laid off, particularly given the backlog of weatherization projects left by Clark upon her departure. Moreover, the severity of Trucks's punishment of Smith, first by laying him off and next by terminating him, relative to the insignificance of his acts also contributes to a finding that Trucks was acting out of anti-union animus. Indeed, the Board found incredible Trucks's justification for the termination of Smith. Finally, the fact that all of these events transpired within days of the union election certainly supports the Board's finding of unfair labor practices. See Adair Standish Corp. v. NLRB, 912 F.2d 854, 861 (6th Cir.1990) (More importantly, Adair's decision to post the tardiness policy (along with the union authorization revocation notice) immediately after the union election belies the company's assertion that the posted policy was nothing more than a formal statement of existing protocol.). The NLRB concluded on the basis of substantial evidence that Trucks acted based upon her disdain for the Union rather than any legitimate employer-related reason.
25 In May, Belongia, an active Union supporter, returned to FiveCAP after a period of sick leave. Shortly thereafter, several FiveCAP employees, including Paula Clark, initiated a petition drive seeking the removal of Trucks and Pomeroy for improper management, unfair labor practices, and breach of fiduciary duties. At the end of May, Trucks and Pomeroy realized that such a petition was being circulated and immediately began interviewing employees about their knowledge and involvement in the petition. On May 31, Trucks called Belongia into her office to ask him if he had any knowledge of the petition. Belongia reluctantly admitted to having seen the petition, but refused to say anything further about it. Trucks told Belongia that in the future it was important that he tell her of anything he knew about the petition. Belongia told Trucks that if he knew of someone trying to harm FiveCAP, he would bring it to her attention, but that the petition was simply supporting the Union, and he would not report others' involvement in it. Trucks said that if Belongia truly felt that way, it might be a good time for him to go. Belongia told Trucks that he was looking for another job, and he might have another job in a month. Trucks told Belongia that he could stay on at FiveCAP for thirty days, during which he could find another job, on the condition that he share any information he discovered regarding the petition. If he failed to comply with this condition, Trucks told him, I can assure you, your ass is grass. And I'm warning you, I will not tolerate it. On June 2, Trucks sent Belongia a memorandum summarizing their meeting, including the fact that Belongia agreed to leave in thirty days, on the condition that he report to her anything he heard about petitions against management. 26 On June 7, Trucks called Belongia into her office to request a report that she had assigned to him on the day before. Belongia replied that he had understood that the report was due the next day, that the report was only partially completed, and that he needed to leave at 5:30 that day for personal reasons. Trucks told Belongia that if he did not complete the report that day, he should not come back to work. 27 Belongia ignored Trucks's statement and returned to work the next day. Upon his arrival, Trucks stopped him from signing in and told him to leave. The two then began to argue. Belongia told Trucks that if he was fired, he wanted her to put it in writing. Trucks told Belongia that he would receive something in the mail, but he should leave immediately. Belongia refused to leave, stating that he wished to retrieve his personal belongings. Trucks told her secretary to call the police and told Belongia not to retrieve his belongings. When the police officer arrived, Trucks told him that she had asked Belongia to leave five times, and he had refused to do so. Belongia explained that he was an employee, and Trucks responded, Not anymore. The police officer asked Belongia to leave, and he complied. The next day, Trucks sent a letter to Belongia indicating that he had been terminated for his conduct in their meeting on June 8, namely his use of insults and threats of violence. 28 We agree with the Board that there exists substantial evidence that the discharge of Belongia was unlawful. As an initial matter, we agree with the Board's finding that Trucks suggested that Belongia resign because of his support of the Union and, by extension, his unwillingness to report to Trucks the activities of fellow Union supporters. Furthermore, we assign the requisite deference to the Board's finding that Trucks was disingenuous when she insisted that she had no intention of terminating Belongia until he acted as he did in their June 8 meeting. Given Trucks's haste in firing Belongia and her hostile behavior towards him in their meeting, as well as her concession that Belongia's skills were very much needed in the weatherization department, the Board's conclusion is sound. Indeed, it appears that the heated exchange between Trucks and Belongia was an extension of the larger conflict between the two, namely that Belongia was unwilling to help her sabotage activity among FiveCAP Union supporters. That Trucks clearly acted on the basis of anti-union animus is more than supported by substantial evidence.

29 After both Smith and Belongia were terminated, Monton and Burkel continued to perform their work in the weatherization department as crew leader and laborer, respectively. In mid-July, 1995, Monton suffered a non-work related injury, causing him to take sick leave. As the sole member of the weatherization department, Burkel continued to work on several projects by himself, though sometimes Pomeroy would assist him. On August 3, Burkel was notified that because Monton was on sick leave, it would be unsafe for him to complete projects on his own. Burkel was then laid off, from August 3 until August 17, when Monton returned from sick leave. 30 The Board conducted a two-step analysis in determining that the layoff of Burkel from August 3 through 17 was unlawful. First, the NLRB concluded that FiveCAP carried its burden under Wright Line in demonstrating that there was a legitimate reason for laying off Burkel from August 3 through August 17, namely that it would be unsafe for Burkel to complete projects by himself. However, the NLRB concluded that because the unlawful discharge of Smith and Belongia were the proximate cause of the absence of employees available to accompany Burkel, his layoff was also unlawful. 9 The NLRB reasoned that even assuming Burkel was a `neutral' employee, 31 his layoff was the direct result of action that the Respondent clearly took for an unlawful motive. In this regard, Burkel's situation was not unlike that of employees who are discharged or otherwise disciplined as the result of a facially unlawful rule or a rule or change in policy which an employer institutes for unlawful reasons. 32 The Board reasoned that regardless of whether Burkel himself was a target of anti-union animus, the fact that his layoff was a result of unlawful action makes it likewise unlawful as a sort of fruit of the poisonous tree. 33 We find that the latter portion of the Board's analysis lacks substantial factual support and does not satisfy the test in Wright Line. Because the Board found that FiveCAP possessed a legitimate reason for laying off Burkel, the burden remains with the General Counsel to demonstrate that FiveCAP nonetheless acted on the basis of anti-union animus. See NLRB v. Wright Line, 662 F.2d 899, 906-07 (1st Cir.1981) (enforcing Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1980 WL 12312 (1980)) (With respect to this ultimate question of a determining causal link between the bad motive and the discharge, the burden of persuasion remains always with the General Counsel.). However, the Board did not require this of the General Counsel; it merely imputed the burden that the General Counsel carried with respect to Smith and Belongia. Once the Board determined that FiveCAP possessed a legitimate reason for laying off Burkel, thus satisfying its burden under Wright Line, the General Counsel is required make a particularized showing that FiveCAP nonetheless acted on the basis of anti-union animus. The Board cannot simply infer such animus from separate acts involving other employees, particularly here, where there exists a neutral fact heavily contributing to Burkel's layoff: Monton's absence due to sick leave. The record indicates that Monton and Burkel regularly completed projects together and continued to do so without the assistance of either Smith or Belongia for six weeks prior to Monton's absence. Moreover, once Monton recovered, both he and Burkel were recalled, albeit temporarily, to work. Therefore, the unlawful discharge of Smith and Belongia, without more, is insufficient to sustain the General Counsel's burden under Wright Line. As such, the Board's determination is not supported by substantial evidence and will not be enforced.
34 On August 16, Monton called Pomeroy to tell him that he was ready to return to work; Pomeroy suggested that both Burkel and Monton return the next day. However, when Monton arrived at work on August 17, Pomeroy told him that he could not recommence work. Pomeroy explained that Trucks decided that because they had just appointed a new weatherization director, they wanted the director to have a chance to get on his feet before Monton and Burkel could return. 35 Monton and Burkel ultimately were recalled to work on January 26, 1996, three days before the hearing before the ALJ. Pomeroy explained that while Trucks had hired a new director, James Mason, on August 4, Mason resigned on September 5. Trucks subsequently hired Chad Van Atter to take over as weatherization director on September 28. However, Trucks and Pomeroy did not recall Burkel and Monton until almost four months later. 36 The Board found incredible Pomeroy's testimony that he and Trucks wanted to wait to recall Monton and Burkel in order to allow Mason, and then Van Atter, time to acclimate to the position of director. Rather, the ALJ found the last-minute decision to be a ploy on the part of Trucks to prolong Burkel's and Monton's layoffs. Moreover, while the ALJ acknowledged that Pomeroy testified that he sent recall letters to Burkel and Monton on January 26, 1996, the ALJ also found relevant the fact that these letters were sent three days before the hearing. The ALJ concluded that FiveCAP sent the letters at that time in an attempt to lend some credence to its purported defense that lack of supervision was responsible for the layoff. The NLRB concurred in the ALJ's conclusion that these layoffs were unlawful. 37 FiveCAP challenges the Board's determination as to the post-August 17 layoffs of Burkel and Monton only as to the period of time from August 17 through September 28, the date on which Trucks hired Van Atter. FiveCAP argues that it demonstrated a legitimate reason for failing to recall Burkel and Monton during this time period, namely that Mason needed time to acclimate to his post, and, after he resigned, the department was in need of yet another director. FiveCAP also argues that any back pay order emanating from its failure to recall Monton and Burkel should be tolled as of January 26, the date on which Monton and Burkel were recalled. 38 FiveCAP's arguments lack merit. The Board correctly concluded that there was substantial evidence of anti-union animus on the part of FiveCAP, and that the search for a director was pretextual. As stated previously, this Court is required to give substantial deference to credibility determinations by the ALJ, and thus we must credit the ALJ's conclusion that Pomeroy was disingenuous about FiveCAP's reasons for waiting to recall Burkel and Monton. Notwithstanding this finding, however, the record seems to indicate that other motives were at play. In particular, Burkel and Monton had managed without a director for several months, as Clark resigned on April 28. Moreover, both Burkel and Monton testified that there was plenty of backlogged work that the two of them could have done together without the assistance of a director. These facts contribute to a substantial showing of anti-union animus. 39 As to the tolling of the backpay order, we are likewise bound to the Board's finding that the backpay order was merely an attempt to save face days before the hearing. Thus, we join in the Board's finding that the backpay order was not tolled as of January 26, 1996.