Opinion ID: 2797368
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Interrogations

Text: Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA also prohibits an employer from coercively interrogating its employees—that is, interrogating them in such a way as to “suggest[] to the employees that the employer may take action against them because of their pro-Union sympathies.” Frito-Lay, Inc. v. NLRB, 585 F.2d 62, 65 (3d Cir. 1978); see also Graham Architectural Prods. Corp. v. NLRB, 697 F.2d 534, 537 (3d Cir. 1983) (“An employer’s questioning becomes coercive and runs afoul of section 8(a)(1) when it ‘suggests to the navigating the law in and of itself is not a sufficient business justification for its conduct. See St. Francis Fed’n of Nurses & Health Prof’ls v. NLRB, 729 F.2d 844, 852 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“The fact that Hospital management scrupulously avoided promising a wage increase until their legal staff gave the go-ahead indicates only that they received dubious legal advice, not that the announcement was lawful.”). 15 employees that the employer may take action against them because of their pro-Union sympathies.’” (quoting Frito-Lay, 585 F.2d at 65)). Although “the questioning must reasonably have tended to coerce under the circumstances,” it need not have “actually had any coercive effect.” Graham Architectural, 637 F.2d at 537-38. “Whether an employer’s actions meet that test is a question of fact for the Board and its determinations are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.” NLRB v. Armcor Indus., Inc., 535 F.2d 239, 242 (3d Cir. 1976). As noted above, “substantial evidence” is a “highly deferential” standard of review. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 506 F.3d at 1083. Here, three interrogations form the basis of the coercive interrogation charge. The participants in these three interrogations were: (1) certified nursing assistant Jeffrey Jimenez and company attorney James Monica; (2) certified nursing assistant Judith Dolcine and Assistant Director of Nursing Ansel Vijayan; and (3) licensed practical nurse Donna Duggar and supervisor Janet Lewis. The ALJ found that each of these interrogations was coercive. He explained that “[t]he applicable test for determining whether questioning an employee constitutes unlawful interrogation is the totality-of-the-circumstances test.” (J.A. 375.) He used the “Bourne factors” to assess the totality of the circumstances. (Id. (citing Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964)).) These factors, which we discuss below, include “an examination or consideration of the background of the interrogation; the nature of the information sought; the identity of the questioner; the place and method of the interrogation; and, the truthfulness of any reply.” (Id.) Applying these factors, the ALJ concluded that Woodcrest had engaged in coercive interrogations and ordered it to cease 16 and desist from “[i]nterrogating its employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies” and to post a notice that Woodcrest “WILL NOT coercively interrogate you regarding your union membership, activities, and sympathies.” (J.A. 388, 390.) On appeal, the Board “agree[d] with the [ALJ], for the reasons he states, that [Woodcrest] violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees both during the Union’s campaign to organize employees at [Woodcrest’s] rehabilitation and nursing facility and after the Union’s certification as the employees’ bargaining representative.” (J.A. 18.) The facts of the three interrogations are set forth below.
Jimenez was a vocal and visible supporter of the Union. Approximately two weeks after the election, Jimenez’s supervisor approached him while he was caring for patients. The supervisor told him that the Director of Nursing wanted to see him in her office. He obliged and went to her office, but only Monica was there. Monica said he was an attorney for Woodcrest investigating whether any supervisors engaged in objectionable conduct in favor of the Union. He handed Jimenez a form document, which Jimenez signed. The form document included the following language: “[t]he only purpose I have in interviewing you is to investigate whether any objectionable conduct occurred in connection with the election held here at Woodcrest on March 9, 2012 and the events leading to that election during the previous 17 weeks and months”; “[w]e are not interested in determining whether you are for or against the Union or if, or how, you voted in the election”; and “[w]e positively assure you that you have the right to join or not to join any labor organization without fear of reprisals.” (J.A. 377.) Monica asked Jimenez whether any supervisors had been involved with the Union, had passed out cards for the Union, or had influenced him in any way to change his vote. He asked if any representative for the Union had gone to Jimenez’s house and if Jimenez “knew any employees who were involved in a union or passing out cards.” (J.A. 376.) He also asked Jimenez if he had signed a card for the Union. Jimenez refused to identify the employees who had supported the Union. Jimenez left the room but then returned, clearly upset, tore up the signed form document, and threw it in the garbage. Approximately five days later, Jimenez’s supervisor approached him, again while he was caring for patients, and informed him that Monica wished to see him in a conference room. When Jimenez arrived, Monica told Jimenez that he did not believe his answers during their first meeting and wanted to give him a second chance to be truthful. Monica repeated many of the same questions, but also asked why Jimenez wanted to form a union. Jimenez answered Monica’s questions, and the interrogation ended without further incident.
In the month before the election, Vijayan approached Dolcine while she was on duty at her workstation and asked to speak with her privately. Vijayan was “a high-level manager.” (J.A. 375.) Years prior, Vijayan had hired 18 Dolcine. During their meeting, Vijayan handed Dolcine a “don’t vote union” flyer and asked her if anyone from the Union had visited or telephoned her at her home. She answered no but said she supported the Union. Vijayan asked her why she needed the Union, and she responded that she needed someone to back her up if something happened or she was fired. Vijayan told her that was not going to happen.
Sometime before the election, Lewis, who was “not a top-level manager,” attended a management meeting in which Woodcrest’s management discussed whether certain employees supported the Union. (J.A. 383.) An attorney at the meeting mentioned that Duggar supported the Union. Lewis, who was friends with Duggar, was surprised and so decided to ask Duggar if the attorney’s statement were true. When asked, Duggar told Lewis that she did not support the Union. The conversation was amicable. Lewis then reported to management that Duggar did not support the Union. There is no evidence that Lewis told Duggar about the management meeting or indicated that she would report Duggar’s response.
Given our deferential standard of review as to whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Woodcrest violated § 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating its employees, we will affirm that at least one of these interrogations was coercive. Specifically, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the MonicaJimenez interrogation was coercive. 19 Section 8(a)(1) provides: “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The Board considers the Bourne factors in determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the questioning was coercive. See, e.g., Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. 1176, 1178 n.20 (1984). The Bourne factors are:
employer hostility and discrimination?
did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees?
was he in the company hierarchy?
employee called from work to the boss’s office? Was there an atmosphere of “unnatural formality”?
Bourne, 332 F.2d at 48. The Bourne factors provide a framework, albeit not a required checklist, to use when assessing a purportedly coercive interrogation. Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. at 1178 n.20; see also United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. NLRB, 387 F.3d 908, 916 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Requiring the Board to address each of the Bourne factors . . . would transform a flexible tool for organizing section 8(a)(1) analysis into a rigid hurdle divorced from its purpose of ensuring that non-threatening interrogation is not deemed an unfair labor practice.”). The factors are useful in 20 assisting the adjudicator to consider the totality of the circumstances, so we hold that the ALJ’s and the Board’s use of the Bourne factors to assess whether a given interrogation is coercive is rational and consistent with the NLRA. Here, notwithstanding that the Board found that three employer-employee interactions constituted unlawful interrogations, it takes just a single coercive interrogation to support the remedy ordered by the Board—namely, a cease and desist order and the posting of a notice that Woodcrest will not coercively interrogate its employees. Because the Order gives only a single remedy for all three violations, as long as at least one of the three interrogations amounted to coercion, we will enforce this part of the Order. The ALJ and the Board’s conclusion that at least one of the interrogations violated § 8(a)(1) is supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, we will not disturb the conclusion that the Monica-Jimenez interrogation constituted a coercive interrogation in violation of § 8(a)(1). The interrogation was initiated by Woodcrest ostensibly to determine whether any supervisors had engaged in improper conduct. Jimenez’s supervisor told him that the Director of Nursing wanted to see him in her office, but, when Jimenez entered the Director’s office, she was not there. Instead, Monica, a lawyer for Woodcrest, was there to conduct an exceedingly formal interview. Monica gave Jimenez a written statement that he was asked to sign. The written statement assured Jimenez that “[t]he only purpose I have in interviewing you is to investigate whether any objectionable conduct occurred in connection with the election held here at Woodcrest . . . and the events leading to that election,” and that “[w]e are not interested in determining whether you are 21 for or against the Union or if, or how, you voted in the election.” However, the lawyer asked him whether he had signed a card for the Union and whether he knew any other unit employees (i.e., election-eligible employees, not supervisors) who were involved in the Union or passing out cards. (J.A. 377.) These unwanted questions upset Jimenez so much that he returned to the office after leaving the meeting and “tore up the document and threw it in the garbage.” (J.A. 376.) Then, approximately five days later, Jimenez’s supervisor again approached Jimenez while he was working and told him to meet with the lawyer in a private conference room. The lawyer told him that “he did not believe Jimenez’[s] answers during their first exchange and wanted to give him a second chance.” (J.A. 377.) He asked Jimenez why he wanted Woodcrest to unionize and whether certain supervisors had campaigned for the Union. Woodcrest argues that the Monica-Jimenez interrogation was found to be coercive solely because Monica asked Jimenez why he wanted a union at Woodcrest. But we disagree. The ALJ and the Board found the interrogation to be coercive based on the totality of the circumstances, properly applying the Bourne factors. Woodcrest’s citations are off-point. Woodcrest cites Hughes & Hatcher, Inc. v. NLRB for the proposition that “[i]nterrogation of employees concerning their membership in the union, membership of fellow-employees, or the general activity of the union, absent interference or coercion, does not violate the Act.” 393 F.2d 557, 563 n.4 (6th Cir. 1968). However, the circumstances here were not so benign. Monica’s questioning of Jimenez regarding topics that Monica was purportedly not to inquire about, along with the accusation that Jimenez had not told the truth, crossed the line. Cf. NLRB v. Prof’l Tape Co., 422 F.2d 22 989, 990 (7th Cir. 1970) (“This was not a mere inquiry to determine Union support. The continuous questioning of Hawkins and Okryesik suggested that the employees were being accused of lying about the union activities and in so doing, the Company created an atmosphere of antagonism toward the Union.”). Indeed, the ALJ and the Board found that the circumstances of Monica’s questioning, taken as a whole, “reasonably tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act” and were coercive. (J.A. 374.) Given the substantial evidence standard, we are not inclined to disturb this conclusion. Moreover, the Monica-Jimenez interrogation has parallels to an interrogation discussed in Graham Architectural, which we held was unlawful. There, the interrogation of David Reisinger by Michael Lehr was “not part of an ordinary casual conversation; rather, Lehr specifically requested Reisinger to come to his office.” Graham Architectural, 697 F.2d at 538. The supervisor also “indicated that he had prior knowledge” of the employee’s union activities. Id. Furthermore, that interrogation involved two mitigating factors that are not present here: the individuals’ “friendship and the occurrence of the conversation in an open plant area.” Id. Yet we, nevertheless, enforced the Board’s order. Id. at 543. Here, Jimenez did not know Monica, and the interrogation occurred first in Jimenez’s boss’s office and then in a private conference room. The Monica-Jimenez interrogation was also similar to a second interrogation found to be unlawful in Graham Architectural—the interrogation of Diana Oberdick by her supervisor, Robert Reichard—which also involved “not a 23 casual inquiry into a co-worker’s feelings, but a request from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was aimed at securing specific information concerning the genesis of the union campaign and the identity of the leaders,” making it “not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that under these circumstances Reichard’s question may have conveyed to Oberdick the message that the Company was contemplating retaliation against the union activists who were responsible for the organizing campaign.” Id. at 538-39. Jimenez could easily have assumed that Monica’s question regarding which unit employees were engaged in Union activities indicated that Woodcrest was contemplating taking some action against the pro-Union employees who were responsible for the organizing campaign. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that this interrogation was unlawful.6 6 Nothing in this opinion should be misinterpreted as indicating that asking employees meaningful questions, including probing for bias and testing credibility, during an internal investigation necessarily violates the NLRA. Internal investigations, especially when conducted by outside counsel, serve an important function, and, in some circumstances, an employer’s legitimate business justification for an interview in connection with an internal investigation may be sufficiently substantial to overcome the coercive effect of an interview on employees’ union activities. See, e.g., Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263, 268-69 (1965) (recognizing that a substantial business justification can outweigh the interference with employee’s rights and overcome § 8(a)(1) charges); Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 918 (3d Cir. 1976) (same). We need not engage the argument in this case, however, because no 24 The coerciveness of the remaining two interrogations is less clear, although, as stated above, Woodcrest loses if a single interrogation was coercive. In particular, the conversation between Duggar and Lewis hardly seems coercive. All we know about the Lewis-Duggar conversation is that “sometime after February 5, but before the representation election,” at some unstated place, Lewis asked Duggar “if she was in favor of the Union,” and Duggar replied truthfully that she was not. (J.A. 383.) Lewis “was not a top-level manager,” and “she and Duggar telephoned each other outside of work and are friends.” (J.A. 382-83.) This conversation is analogous to a conversation that we found to be lawful in Graham Architectural—the interrogation of Darlene Stambaugh by Greg Nash. There, a supervisor “called [Stambaugh] over to his desk and asked her whether she was for the Union.” Graham Architectural, 697 F.2d at 539. They then had an extended discussion about “the advantages and disadvantages of the Union.” Id. Like here, “[t]he question itself contained no veiled threat or implication that the Company contemplated reprisals against union supporters.” Id. Here, the only evidence that the ALJ found of coercion was that Lewis reported Duggar’s response to management, yet there is no indication that Lewis gave Duggar any reason to suspect that she would do so. Thus, that fact cannot be relevant to whether the “questioning must reasonably have tended to coerce under the circumstances.” Id. at 537-38. The NLRB’s only case law to the contrary is from another interrogation in Graham Architectural in which we said that, considering all the other indicia of coercion, a such business justification was asserted by Woodcrest before the Board or on appeal. 25 supervisor’s friendly manner is insufficient to overturn the Board’s finding that substantial evidence supports a finding of coercion. See id. at 538-39. But here, there were no other indicia of coercion. The Vijayan-Dolcine conversation falls between these two extremes. Unlike the Lewis-Duggar conversation, the Vijayan-Dolcine conversation involved a “high-level manager,” who approached a unit employee “at her workstation while she was on duty and asked to speak with her privately.” (J.A. 375.) Vijayan gave Dolcine an antiunion flyer and “ask[ed] about her union activities including why she needed a union.” (J.A. 376.) Given the formality of the conversation, the power dynamic, and the fact that Vijayan made it clear to Dolcine (by giving her the antiunion flyer) what Vijayan’s views were and what Dolcine’s answer should be, the Board may well have had substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the interrogation was coercive, although we need not find more than one interrogation coercive for the result here. Because at least one interrogation was coercive, we will affirm and enforce this part of the Order.7 7 We note that the remedy imposed was imprecise. The Board ordered Woodcrest to cease and desist from “[i]nterrogating its employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies” (J.A. 20, 388), but the Notice to Employees, which the Board required Woodcrest to post, states that Woodcrest “WILL NOT coercively interrogate you regarding your union membership, activities, and sympathies” (J.A. 20, 390 (emphasis added)). To the extent that the remedy could be misconstrued as prohibiting employee 26