Opinion ID: 235069
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Board's findings of unlawful surveillance.

Text: 16 There is undisputed testimony that on August 10, 1951, the union negotiator, Baker, advised respondent National's counsel, Constangy, that he could not hold the employees any longer, and he was afraid they were going to strike. 9 Constangy relayed this information to National's president, Wellhouse, that same day, and the latter immediately became apprehensive that a strike was imminent and that violence, with attendant property damage or personal injury, might result, in view of the atmosphere of labor tension which had prevailed in the vicinity. 10 Wellhouse accordingly telephoned respondent Southern, a company recognized in the community as licensed to engage in the business of providing plant protection services, and subsequently entered into a written agreement with that company to furnish plant guards and watchmen during the period in which the threatened strike was considered imminent. On the following Monday, August 13th, respondent Southern furnished two uniformed and armed watchmen for plant protection by day, and one during the night, one of the daytime guards being stationed at respondent National's parking lot while the other guard patrolled the four stories and basement of respondent's plant building while the employees were at work. This practice continued for three days prior to the strike, which was called on the following Thursday, August 16th. In spite of the Board's intimation in brief that all National employees were thereby subjected to constant surveillance and harassment, there is no convincing evidence that these two guards actually violated their written orders not to molest or interfere with the employees at their work, though there is some testimony revealing that the employees naturally resented their presence. In any event, it is without dispute that at no time during this three-day period was there any protest or complaint based on the presence of the guards lodged with respondent by any employee or the union, and neither the Trial Examiner or the Board made any finding to that effect. Nevertheless, the Trial Examiner characterized National's employment of the guards as flagrant interference with the employees' rights, as an act undertaken with the intent and purpose of precipitating the strike and altering employee working conditions to those of a chain gang. We think the use of such intemperate language at the Trial Examiner level, where the crucial record in all these strongly contested disputes is made, was indeed unfortunate, for intemperate and vituperative characterization of employer action in an admittedly equivocal situation, even if deserved, hardly bespeaks that calm and dispassionate judgment which a just disposition of such proceedings requires. Nor do we think that the findings and order in this respect are enforceable on the Board's alternative theory that the guards were employed for the opposite purpose of coercing the employees to refrain from striking. While the issue of whether, under all the facts and circumstances of a particular case, surveillance of employees is for the lawful purpose of plant protection, or for the prohibited purpose of employee restraint and intimidation, is a question of fact generally to be resolved by the Board upon substantial evidence, we think there is no substantial evidence in support of its finding here. Respondent National having made a reasonable showing of its good faith in retaining such services solely for plant or personnel protection, after notification of an impending strike, we think an unlawful and improper motive ought not be imputed to National on any theory advanced either by the Trial Examiner or the Board. See N. L. R. B. v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 848, 854. We think the Trial Examiner's and Board's reasoning in this regard is fairly subject to the criticism that an employer's exercise of business judgment in an admittedly tense situation ought not be so narrowly scrutinized, weighed in delicate balance and subjected to such strict hindsight review as to the necessity of specific action taken on the basis of ex post facto criticism from persons not actually confronted with the emergency. 11 It follows that the provision of the Board's order based on findings of unlawful surveillance by all three respondents is not supported by substantial evidence and may not be enforced. 17