Opinion ID: 422273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 22 Upon a careful review of the record, we conclude that the following factual findings on the unlawful interrogations are supported by substantial evidence. During April and early May of 1980, Luis Diaz actively began to organize respondent's employees on behalf of the United Auto Workers. Word of this activity was quickly disseminated throughout the plant, and management admittedly was aware of rumors of the organizational drive. 23 On one occasion, when Diaz and several coworkers were having coffee in the company cafeteria, Piotrowski approached them and asked, What is happening? Are you forming the union? Diaz replied that they were talking about baseball. Piotrowski responded that he thought they were talking about the union; he then left. Similar exchanges were repeated on two or three occasions within the next few days, always when two or more employees had gathered to have coffee. Piotrowski consistently asked, Are you forming the union? Diaz consistently denied discussing or forming the union. 3 On May 12, 1980, near employee Hill's work station and in the presence of Diaz and several unnamed employees, supervisor Shea asked employee Olivio, Are you in the union? Three days later, as Olivio and several coworkers were standing near the bulletin board, on which was posted a notice of a future union meeting, Shea approached, read the notice, and commented, That is garbage. If you want to go, go, but that won't help you. On May 15, Piotrowski approached employees Villegas and Bolano, who were standing near the coffee machine, and asked, Are you talking about the union, or what? Villegas denied discussing the union. This identical scenario was repeated one week later. 24 The ALJ concluded that respondent's interrogation reasonably tended to interfere with the exercise by the employees of their section 7 rights in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The ALJ stressed several factors: the nature of the questioning, the lack of justification for it, the number of times it was repeated, the timing of the interrogation (early stages of an organizational campaign when it would be intimidating to employees affiliated or considering affiliation with the union), the dishonesty of the employees' replies, and Shea's declaration of anti-union animus. The ALJ's finding that respondent unlawfully interrogated its employees during the early stages of an organizational campaign was adopted by the Board on review.