Opinion ID: 281097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the 'interrogation' finding

Text: 51 The Board found that Farnow's question to Yockmen-- the question whether Yockmen 'knew anything about' the representation petition-- constituted an impermissible 'interrogation' 0f the latter concerning his union activities. We are unable to conclude that this finding is supported by substantial evidence. 52 The question just referred to constituted the whole of Farnow's part of the conversation; after Yockmen's reply, Farnow 'walked out of the casino.' There was no testimony that Farnow's demeanor was in any way threatening. We think the Second Circuit's opinion in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964) (per curiam), provides helpful guidelines for dealing with the question of whether an impermissible 'interrogation' has taken place. The factors to be considered, according to that opinion, include the following: 53 '(1) The background, i.e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination? 54 '(2) The nature of the information sought, e.g. did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees? 55 '(3) The identity of the questioner, i.e. how high was he in the company hierarchy? 56 '(4) Place and method of interrogation, e.g. was employee called from work to the boss's office? Was there an atmosphere of 'unnatural formality'? 57 '(5) Truthfulness of the reply.' A weighing of these considerations here can only support our belief that the Board's finding lacks a substantial foundation in the record and cannot be sustained. 58