Opinion ID: 795996
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discredited Security Guard Story

Text: 37 Advocate argues that it was unreasonable for the NLRB to discredit Hall's story about the encounter with the security guard on the grounds that she had a tendency to exaggerate or embellish her statements in minor respects and yet to credit her Mulvihill story, presumably affected by the same tendency. This interpretation, however, oversimplifies the Board's position; in fact, the NLRB adopted the ALJ's finding that the general scenario [involving the guard] as described by Hall may have occurred, but that due to Hall's tendency to embellish her testimony, it could not be sufficiently certain that what the security guard actually said to Hall violated the NLRA. In re Advocate South Suburban Hospital, 346 NLRB No. 23, 2006 WL 92791, at  (Jan. 10, 2006). 38 Thus, the NLRB ruled that the security guard did have the right to threaten Hall for distributing literature in certain ways: Hall had no right to distribute literature in patient care areas or while she was on the clock. In the case of the security guard testimony, therefore, a relatively slight distortion in the telling could turn a report of a legitimate warning (informing Hall that she could be disciplined for distributing literature on the clock) into an account of an improper threat (telling Hall that she could be fired for distributing literature to coworkers at any time). Id. at . 39 The NLRB was not as concerned with Hall's embellishment tendency when evaluating the story of her confrontation with Mulvihill because it was completely impermissible for Mulvihill in any way to imply that the union was under surveillance or to threaten Hall for or coercively interrogate her about her union activities. Even if the NLRB concluded that Hall had significantly amplified the degree of threat in her testimony, the underlying events would still be illegal. The NLRB's decision to treat Hall's similar allegations against the two employer representatives differently was understandable.