Opinion ID: 2972022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ Opinion

Text: On June 18 and 19, 2002, the ALJ tried the case and, on September 23, 2002, issued an opinion. In that opinion, the ALJ found that the Observer did not violate Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA when it laid Grabda off. However, the ALJ found that the Observer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by interrogating employees about pending union efforts without providing the assurances described in Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 N.L.R.B. 770 (1964), enforcement denied on other grounds, 344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1965). After receiving conflicting testimony about whether Heusel gave the Johnnie’s Poultry assurances to the employees, the ALJ found that Heusel and Gorno failed to inform the employees “that they could decline to be interviewed and that they would not experience retaliation on account of their answers or their refusal to be interviewed.” In this finding, the ALJ found Gregway credible and discredited contrary testimony from Heusel and Gorno. In finding Heusel less credible, the ALJ observed that Heusel could not “specifically recall whether or not he gave these assurances to Grabda and Gregway.” Instead, Heusel only testified about his general practice when interviewing employees of his clients. Finding Gregway credible, the ALJ concluded that the Observer unlawfully interrogated Gregway in violation of Section 8(a)(1).