Opinion ID: 202767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the General Counsel Met His Burden

Text: 22 On petition for review, the Hospital appears to argue that the General Counsel failed to meet his burden under Wright Line on the alleged violations. 3 The record makes it easy to conclude that the burden was met. There were several smoking guns indicating that the Hospital both had anti-union animus and had retaliated against Garcia for his role in the union. 23 Indeed, there was an explicit conversation between management and Garcia in which Garcia was told that his lot in life would improve if he abandoned his union activities. The general supervisor of nursing services, Ausberto Felix Ortiz (Felix), point-blank asked Garcia if he was going to engage in union protest activity on August 6, 2001. When Garcia said that he was, Felix replied that that was why Garcia would never be a supervisor and why he was always in trouble. After a pregnant pause, Felix then made a comment associating the union — and Garcia by implication — with a Satanic sect. The ALJ found Felix's denial of the conversation not credible. 24 The Hospital argues that the ALJ improperly based his credibility determination on the plausibility of Felix's assertion that he had no interest in union affairs. The ALJ noted that Felix carried significant responsibility for providing adequate nursing staff during union picketing, and that Felix conceded that he undertook necessary preparations before each union strike. Hosp. Cristo Redentor, 347 N.L.R.B. No. 65, at 17. This court will set aside an ALJ's credibility finding only when [the ALJ] oversteps the bounds of reason. Holyoke Visiting Nurses Ass'n v. NLRB, 11 F.3d 302, 308 (1st Cir.1993) (quoting NLRB v. Am. Spring Bed Mfg. Co., 670 F.2d 1236, 1242 (1st Cir.1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). It was certainly not unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that a supervisor charged with ensuring adequate nursing coverage during union strikes would have at least some interest in that union activity, and that Felix's denial of any such interest was not credible. Moreover, the ALJ buttressed his conclusion with his observation of Felix's haughty demeanor on the witness stand. Hosp. Cristo Redentor, 347 N.L.R.B. No. 65, at 18. Credibility assessments by the ALJ, in particular, are entitled to great weight, since he heard and saw the witnesses testify. McGaw, 135 F.3d at 7 (quoting Holyoke Visiting Nurses Ass'n, 11 F.3d at 308) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Hosp. San Pablo, 207 F.3d at 70. 25 There was additional evidence of anti-union animus. In September 2001, Garcia was called in for a disciplinary meeting; the Hospital had apparently prepared a letter dismissing Garcia for a supposed incident on a particular date. The Hospital had neglected to look at its own records, which, when produced at the union's insistence, showed that Garcia had not been on duty on the day of the alleged incident. Management's trumping up charges to dismiss a union representative is hardly evidence of neutrality. 26 Further, Ingrid Vega Méndez, a union representative who attended the September meeting, testified that Lacot, the human resources director, said after the meeting that Garcia's attitude could not be tolerated and that [it] could bring about his dismissal, and, even more so, when he was the delegate. Lacot's comment directly ties management's actions to Garcia's role as a union delegate. The Board thus had unusually strong evidence that Garcia's union activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the actions taken against him.