Opinion ID: 186380
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Evidence of Threatening Statements

Text: 16 Federated argues that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that its managers made statements constituting prohibited threats. Instead, the employer argues, the statements that the ALJ did establish it made fell within the safe haven created by NLRA § 8(c), 29 U.S.C. § 158(c), to protect employers' free speech rights. Pet. Br. at 26. Section 8(c) holds that: 17 The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 18 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). 19 Therefore, an employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his general views about unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the communications do not contain a `threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.' NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) (quoting NLRA § 8(c)). This means that an employer is free ... to tell what he reasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside his control, so long as the employer stops short of implying that it may or may not take action solely on [its] own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities.... Id. at 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918. If the statements do amount to a threat under this test, whether or not they are true is inapposite. Macmillan Publishing Co. v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 165, 167 (D.C.Cir.1999). In essence, Federated is saying that the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding of a threat of reprisal or force. 20 As stated above, we must treat the Board's findings as to questions of fact as conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.... 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). This means that we will therefore uphold the Board's findings with respect to the threatening nature of Vella's and Hart's comments if they are based upon such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion. Evergreen America Corp., 362 F.3d at 837. Insofar as these findings were based on credibility determinations by the ALJ, we will not reverse unless those determinations are hopelessly incredible, self-contradictory, or patently unsupportable. Shamrock Foods Co. v. NLRB, 346 F.3d 1130, 1134 (D.C.Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). 21 Because Federated is challenging the Board's findings that Vella and Hart's statements amounted to unlawful threats on the basis that they fall within § 8(c)'s protection, Federated must show no reasonable factfinder could find that the three managers made statements that amounted to implications that, in the event of unionization, Federated might take action on its own initiative to render unionization futile, for reasons unrelated to economic necessity. See Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918. Federated cannot meet this burden. 22 Federated first contends that the Board's finding that [Federated] threatened that the Union ` would strike[,]' Pet.Br. at 27 (emphasis in brief), is protected under § 8(c), 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). Id. at 29 Alone, a prediction that a union would strike after being certified would not amount to a threat. See Hilton-Laughlin v. NLRB, 148 F.3d 1166, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1998) (noting that the Board itself has found no unfair labor practice in such management statements as ... [after] `a vote for the [union] ... who knows, we might wind [up] in another strike.'). But in taking this comment out of context, Federated has blown its relevance out of proportion. The Board, adopting the ALJ's conclusion, found that the comment that the Union would strike amounted to a threat of futility when viewed in combination with the managers' other statements (that bargaining would start from zero, that work would be moved to another facility in the event of a strike, and that employees could lose their pensions and 401(k) plans following unionization). See ALJ Decision at 1 ([W]e agree with the judge that Beachy's, Vella's and Hart's statements reasonably would be understood by employees as threats that benefits would be lost and that selecting union representation would be futile.); id. at 14 (All of [these comments] in combination w[ere] a threat to employees that it was futile to support the Union.). Federated cannot show that the Board lacked substantial evidence to find that those other statements (a) were made and (b) together amounted to a threat that Federated might take action on its own initiative to render unionization futile. 23 As the ALJ correctly concluded, threats that bargaining would start from zero and benefits would be lost in the event of unionization amount to unlawful threats of futility. See Taylor-Dunn Mfg. Co., 252 NLRB 799, 800 (1980), enfd. without opinion, 679 F.2d 900 (9th Cir.1982); Noah's Bay Area Bagels, LLC, 331 NLRB 188 (2000). A threat that the employer would move the Tampa facility's work elsewhere in the event of a strike is an obvious threat of futility, given that it would depend on Federated tak[ing] action solely on [its] own initiative.... Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918. The ALJ's determination that the managers communicated that these events would come to pass in the event of unionization and/or a strike, which came down to a credibility determination between the testimony of the managers as against that of three employees at the meeting, see ALJ Decision at 13-14, is neither hopelessly incredible, self-contradictory, or patently unsupportable. Shamrock Foods, 346 F.3d 1130 at 1134 (internal quotations omitted). This is true in light of not only the employees' specific testimony that they were told these events would occur, ALJ Decision at 13, but also talking points included on the slides that hardly allow for an alternate interpretation of events. To give just a sample, the slides used at the meetings reminded the employees that EVERYTHING you have now goes on bargaining table[,] J.A. at 95; employees at one of the employer's unionized facilities have no Federated pension or 401(K) plan, id. at 99; and the Union will try to stop work here followed by a statement that the Company can protect itself by hiring new people or moving work. Id. at 100. 24