Opinion ID: 159879
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervisor Marrs

Text: 63 The Board adopted the ALJ's finding that on or about March 5, in part to respond to the disciplinary actions imposed for alleged union solicitation, Supervisor Dan Marrs made coercive statements to employees regarding the union that violated 8(a)(1) of the Act. On March 5, Mr. Marrs indicated that if the employees chose union representation, their bargaining position would start from ground zero. Rec. vol. II at 288-90, 291, 301. The ALJ found the employees' testimony regarding these statements to be credible and that the statements were made to suggest that they would lose benefits if it voted for the union, which violated 8(a)(1). See ALJ Decision at 27-28; see also Manna Pro Partners, 986 F.2d at 1351 (An employer violates [8(a)(1)] by making statements that tend to coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory right to self-organize and engage in activities for the purpose of collective bargaining.). 64 Undoubtedly, an employer may properly point out the hazards of the collective bargaining process. NLRB v. Belcher Towing Co., 265 N.L.R.B. 1258, 1268 (1982), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 726 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1984). Bargaining may start from 'scratch' or 'zero' and the employees may be so informed by their employer prior to an election. Id. It is when the statement exceeds an expression of opinion as to the natural and normal hazards of collective bargaining and carries with it the seed of a threat that the employer will become punitively intransigent in the event the union wins the election, that the statement becomes coercive and unlawful. Belcher Towing Co., 726 F.2d at 711; see In re Bi-Lo, 303 N.L.R.B. 749, 750 (1991) (indicating that bargaining from scratch comments undergo analysis considering whether it is (1) a lawful statement that benefits could be lost through the bargaining process or (2) an unlawful threat that benefits will be taken away and the union will have to bargain to get them back). 65 Here, the ALJ and Board considered Mr. Marrs' statements to be unlawful in the context of the above-described disciplinary actions that were unfair labor practices and the contemporaneous threats from Supervisor Coldiron and President Weber. The ALJ's determinations that Mr. Marrs' statements violated 8(a)(1) was proper. See Gissell Packing Co., 395 U.S. at 617 (stating that [a]ny assessment of the precise scope of employer expression . . .must be made in the context of its labor relations setting); In re Taylor-Dunn Mf'g. Co., 252 N.L.R.B. 799, 800 (1980) (stating that bargaining from ground zero or bargaining from scratch statements could reasonably be understood by employees as a threat of loss of existing benefits prior to bargaining that is unlawful in the absence of other statements regarding the normal give and take of collective bargaining), enforced, 679 F.2d 900 (9th Cir. 1982).