Opinion ID: 185893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bale's Antiunion Threat

Text: 44 Casino next objects to the Board's finding that Bale's antiunion threat was an ULP. Petitioner argues that, because the complaint did not allege that Bale's statement violated the Act, and because the General Counsel did not move to amend the complaint to include such an allegation, petitioner was deprived of a full and fair hearing on the issue. We disagree. On the record at hand, the Board findings that Bale's statement violated § 8(a)(1) and also demonstrated petitioner's animus against the Union, a factor relevant to the complaint's § 8(a)(3) allegations, were fully justified. 45 The Board's Rules and Regulations require that the complaint include [a] clear and concise description of the acts which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, 29 C.F.R. § 102.15(b). Although Bale's statement was not specifically alleged in the General Counsel's complaint, [i]t is well settled that the Board may find and remedy a violation even in the absence of a specified allegation in the complaint if the issue is closely connected to the subject matter of the complaint and has been fully litigated. Pergament United Sales, 296 N.L.R.B. 333, 334, 1989 WL 285288 (1989), enf'd, 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir.1990); see also Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 114, 122 (D.C.Cir.2001). Consistent with this established legal standard, the Board properly held that a close connection existed between Bale's statement and the subject matter of the complaint, and that petitioner had an opportunity to litigate the issue fully. Casino Ready Mix, 2001 WL 1039902, at -. 46 The close connection between Bale's statement and the subject matter of the complaint is demonstrated in three ways. First, the complaint alleged that supervisor Larry Hildebrand threatened that Casino would close down its Nevada operation to avoid unionization. Id. at . Thus, Casino knew that it was being charged with a § 8(a)(1) violation for the same kind of threats that Newcomb's testimony suggested that Bale had made. Second, the complaint alleged that Bale was the president of the Company, a statutory supervisor, and an agent acting on [petitioner's] behalf. Id. at . This put petitioner on notice that it could be held accountable for Bale's actions. Finally, Bale's threats were obviously relevant to the complaint's allegations that petitioner discriminated against Union members in its employment policies, as the threats clearly demonstrated union animus. Id. These circumstances clearly support the Board's finding that a close connection existed between Bale's threats and the subject matter of the complaint. 47 Petitioner also had the opportunity to litigate the issue fully. Petitioner did not object to Newcomb's testimony, and had an opportunity to cross-examine Newcomb about Bale's statement. This furnished ample opportunity to litigate the issue. See Williams Pipeline Co., 315 N.L.R.B. 630, 630, 1994 WL 662859 (1994) (At the hearing, there was no objection to [the accusing witness's] testimony, and the Respondent had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and further explore the issue. Accordingly, we find that the issue was fairly and fully litigated.). It may be that, in not questioning Newcomb, Casino's counsel made a calculated decision not to pursue the matter during the hearing, either because counsel knew that what Newcomb alleged was in fact true or because counsel hoped to discredit Newcomb's testimony by reference to other evidence in the record. In any event, it is clear that Casino purposely allowed Newcomb's testimony to stand unchallenged, without either objection or cross-examination. When such a decision backfires, a party cannot be heard on appeal to claim that it was denied a fair hearing. The claim rings hollow. 48 Finally, petitioner's contention that the Board did not adhere to its precedent in Germinsky Electrical Co., 331 N.L.R.B. 1365, 2000 WL 1268768 (2000), is without merit, because that case dealt with an entirely different issue. Petitioner argues that, in dismissing allegations of discriminatory refusal-to-hire union applicants, the ALJ in Germinsky refused to consider a letter written by the company president as evidence of antiunion animus, because it was not alleged to violate § 8(a)(1). Id. at 1366. A three-member panel of the Board unanimously upheld the ALJ's dismissal of the complaint against the employer, and only one of the three members — then-Chairman Truesdale — chose to disavow the ALJ's refusal to consider the letter. Id. at 1365 n. 1. Thus, petitioner states that [i]t is logical to infer that the majority ty of the Board approved of the judge's refusal to consider such evidence to prove antiunion animus. Br. of Petitioner at 34. The Board saw no need to explain or otherwise address Germinsky in its opinion in this case. This is hardly surprising, for even a cursory examination of Germinsky reveals that it does not support petitioner's attempted use of the case. 49 In Germinsky, the company president met with union representatives, and claimed that they told him that the [union] was going to step up its union activity and that if Germinsky did not sign a contract, they were going to put his company out of business. Germinsky, 331 N.L.R.B. at 1366. Thereafter, the president sent out a letter to his employees which asserted that the [union] was trying to coerce the Company into signing a contract and that it was out to destroy the Company if necessary. Id. The ALJ stated that, given the context in which it was sent, the letter did not demonstrate union animus. Id. A majority of the Board accepted this conclusion. Thus, the circumstances in Germinsky — focusing on the appropriate use of the employer's protected speech to provide evidence of antiunion animus — are far different from the circumstances here. This case involves an employer's statement that clearly reflects an antiunion threat and plainly bears a close connection to the subject matter of the complaint. Thus, Germinsky provides absolutely no support for petitioner's position.