Opinion ID: 4017094
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impressible Promising of Benefits

Text: The promise or conferral of a benefit to employees in the run-up to a union election will typically amount to coercion, and thereby an unfair labor practice in violation of the Act. See NLRB v. Bailey Co., 180 F.2d 278, 279 (6th Cir. 1950) (“[T]hrough the promises of . . . economic benefits . . . , the respondent was demonstrating to its employees that resort to selforganization was plainly unnecessary. This constituted interference with the exercise by the employees of their right of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing.”). “[T]he critical inquiry is whether the benefits were granted for the - 10 - Case Nos. 15-1433, 15-1611 Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB purpose of influencing the employees’ vote in the election and were of a type reasonably calculated to have that effect.” United Airlines Servs. Corp., 290 N.L.R.B. 954, 954 (1988) (citing NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964)). “[U]nless the company can present a legitimate business reason for the timing of its guarantee,” such “a promise [of benefits] will be presumed impermissibly influential.” DynCorp, Inc. v. NLRB, 233 F. App’x 419, 430 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Bailey Co., 180 F.2d at 279).
The Judge found that there “was no reason for Brian Purcell to announce [in September] the fact that employees would be receiving the bonus in December other than to influence them in voting in the representation election” and that “the announcement was motivated by [Caterpillar’s] desire to discourage unit employees from voting for union representation,” because there was “no credible evidence that a firm decision had been made to pay employees the $400 bonus prior to the filing of the representation petition on August 16.” Thus, the Judge found that the announcement of the safety bonus was an impermissible benefit amounting to an unfair labor practice in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The Board agreed with these findings. Caterpillar continues to argue that the bonus was first announced in March or July of 2013, when it would not have influenced an impending representation election. But the Judge credited the testimony of twelve employees who recalled no such announcements, and found that even if Caterpillar’s witnesses were credited, their testimony would indicate at most that Caterpillar announced in March or July that it might apply for the bonus, without conclusively indicated if or when an application would be made. The Board agreed with these findings. - 11 - Case Nos. 15-1433, 15-1611 Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB The Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. We agree that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate [the evidence] support[ing]” the Board’s conclusion that even if Caterpillar’s witnesses are credited regarding the purported March and July announcements, these announcements indicated at most that Caterpillar might apply for the safety bonus. Dupont Dow Elastomers, 296 F.3d at 500 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For instance, Value Stream Manager Sara Pahlas testified that then-General Manager Jeff Slocum presented to employees at the March meeting the proposal for the safety bonus, reading from a PowerPoint presentation. The PowerPoint presentation that was purportedly displayed to employees at the meeting says conditionally that a bonus will be paid out to employees “IF AND ONLY IF we are positioned to submit a viable safety program for consideration in the annual ‘Chairman’s Safety Award’ Process.” Likewise, Safety Manager Rivera testified that, at the July meeting, he “covered the two projects that [he] thought we would be submitting, or we thought we would be submitting for that award.” Assuming these announcements were in fact made — which the testimony of the twelve employees draws into doubt — adequate evidence suggests they were conditional at best. Thus, the Board and the Judge reasonably determined that employees were told for the first time, nine days before the election, that they would be receiving a bonus of $400. The Board and the Judge could have reasonably concluded that the bonus was “granted for the purpose of influencing the employees’ vote in the election and [was] reasonably calculated to have that effect.” United Airlines Servs. Corp., 290 N.L.R.B. at 954. And even if the bonus was warranted for business reasons (like safety), Caterpillar cannot provide a “legitimate business reason for the timing of its guarantee” in order to rebut the presumption that the announcement of the bonus was impermissibly coervice. DynCorp, 233 F. App’x at 430 (emphasis added). - 12 - Case Nos. 15-1433, 15-1611 Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB Indeed, the timing of the announcement reinforces the presumption that it was intended to coerce. Although the bonus was to be awarded on the basis of warehouse safety through the end of September 2013, the application was prepared in August, submitted on September 13, and announced of September 18 — just nine days before the election. Thus, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the bonus was impermissibly secured “right before an election and sprung on the employees in a manner calculated to influence the employees’ choice.” NLRB v. Arrow Elastic Corp., 573 F.2d 702, 706 (1st Cir. 1978); see also St. Francis Fed’n of Nurses & Health Profs. v. NLRB, 729 F.2d 844, 850 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“Thus the timing of the announcement of a [benefit] may violate section [158(a)(1)], even though the employer’s initial decision to [provide the benefit] was perfectly legitimate.”)
The Judge found that the promised smoking shelters amounted to a benefit, and that the timing of their announcement was “designed to convince the employees that their demands would be met through direct dealing with [Caterpillar] and that union representation could in no way be advantageous to them.” The Judge thus found that the announcement of smoking shelters amounted to an unfair labor practice in violation of the Act. The Board agreed with the