Opinion ID: 4206537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plant closure threats

Text: Southern claims that the Board erroneously determined that it violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening plant closure if the union was not decertified. The NLRA allows an employer to predict the effects of unionization only if such prediction is carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control or to convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization. Gissel, 395 U.S. at 618. Under Gissel, the expression of the employer's belief, even though sincere, that unionization will or may result in the closing of the plant is a violation of § 8(a)(1) unless, which is most improbable, the eventuality of closing is capable of proof. Id. at 618–19 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NLRB v. Noll Motors, Inc., 433 F.2d 853, 854–56 (8th Cir. 1970). In one of the captive audience meetings, Southern executive Rickey Ledbetter said to the company's employees: From an economic standpoint, we do not want a union because we believe it drags our Company down in so many ways. If we can't meet or beat the competition we can't survive. Just look at what happened to the Hostess Bakeries, Automobile companies and Steel companies. Unions strangled these companies to death. . . . There are lots of things -8- a union can do to hurt these ingredients for success. Higher costs, less flexibility, lower productivity and loss of team unity can be crippling to a business and cost employees their jobs. In another speech, Ledbetter told employees that [j]ust because the contract is for a certain period of time doesn't mean that a company has to stay open or keep all of its employees during that period. In a similar case, we determined that an employer violated § 8(a)(1) when it called [employees'] attention to other plants in the community where employees had been laid off following their vote to unionize. Noll Motors, 433 F.2d at 854. We concluded that the employer's prediction was not carefully phrased to demonstrate probable consequences beyond [its] control nor to convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization. Id. at 856. Rather, the employer's statements were phrased to predict that unionization would inevitably cause the plant to close, throwing employees out of work regardless of the economic realities. Id.; see also NLRB v. Mark I Tune-Up Ctrs., Inc., 691 F.2d 415, 417 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that Southern's statements implied an unlawful threat that continued unionization would cause the bakery to close and employees to lose their jobs. Although the company argues that it also assured employees that it would continue to work with them under the same conditions if the union prevailed, these assurances did not make its threats of plant closure lawful. Cf. A.P. Green Fire Brick Co. v. NLRB, 326 F.2d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 1964).