Opinion ID: 392028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Supervisor Strike Misconduct

Text: 93 The Board found that the actions of SGG president Edward Churchill and SGG Hampden branch manager Edward Tribou on June 25, 1976 violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act. The ALJ found that the supervisors' unlawful conduct included Tribou's throwing picket signs into the street at SGG's Bangor and Hampden facilities, Tribou's and Churchill's solicitation of strikers Carleton French and Harold Douglas, to return to work with promises of increased wages, Churchill's assault on striker Nick Botzko at the Hampden site, and Tribou's threats and attempts to incite a fight at both locations. The ALJ noted that prior to these incidents Churchill and Tribou had had drinks and lunch at a nearby restaurant. He also found that Nadeau responded to Tribou's threats and taunts that the strikers were getting to them and that the company officials had been working 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day. In so finding, the ALJ credited the testimony of pickets French, Douglas, and Nadeau, and discredited the accounts of the incidents of Churchill and Tribou, except to the extent that the latter corroborated the strikers' testimony. The ALJ further found that French, Douglas, and Nadeau reported the respective incidents which they observed in detail to the assembled union membership at the monthly membership meeting a day or two later. 94 It is clear that a supervisor's physical violence or threats of assault against employees engaged in protected conduct, attributable to the supervisor's employer under agency principles, violates § 8(a)(1). NLRB v. Fry Foods, Inc., 241 NLRB No. 42 (1979), enf'd, 609 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (threats of violence to union supporters, assault by automobile); NLRB v. Gibbs Corp., 297 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1962) (beating of union organizers); NLRB v. H. R. McBride, 274 F.2d 124 (10th Cir. 1960) (nonunion company president's violence against union pickets held to coerce nonunion employees); Heights Thrift-Way, Inc., 155 NLRB 52 (1965) (nonunion company president's threats and violence against peaceful union pickets); R. Gorman, supra, at 326. Similarly, soliciting striking employees individually and offering financial inducements to return to work has been held to violate § 8(a)(1). E. g., NLRB v. Easton Packing Co., 416 F.2d 256, 258 (3d Cir. 1969); NLRB v. Neiderman, 334 F.2d 601, 603 (2d Cir. 1964). Such overtly anti-union conduct, likely to intimidate or undermine employees' free exercise of their § 7 rights, is typically held to be a per se violation of § 8(a)(1). Under the objective test, the ineffectiveness of the supervisors' activities ... will not vitiate a Section 8(a)(1) finding if the conduct itself, viewed in context, may reasonably induce fear of reprisal or anticipation of reward. Peerless of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 484 F.2d 1108, 1115 (7th Cir. 1973). 95 Under basic § 8(a)(1) objective test principles, however, it is possible that under limited circumstances such objectionable employer conduct might be found to be de minimis. As discussed supra, the appropriate inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, reasonable union pickets would feel interfere(d) with, restrain(ed) or coerce(d) in the exercise of their statutorily protected rights by the incident in question. Cf. Associated Grocers of New England Inc. v. NLRB, 562 F.2d 1333, 1335-36 (1st Cir. 1977) (dismissing certain striker picket line misconduct as slight, within allowable leeway for impulsive behavior, noting objective test is whether the misconduct is such that, under the circumstances existing, it may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of rights protected under the Act); Peerless, supra, 484 F.2d at 1115, 1120 (record shows employees resolute and unintimidated, supervisor threats and solicitations ineffective, marginal indiscretions, but § 8(a)(1) finding affirmed as having reasonable basis in law). 96 Although the objective impact of Churchill's and Tribou's misconduct is questionable, we affirm the Board's finding of § 8(a)(1) violations as having a reasonable basis in law. Peerless, supra. We find no basis for disturbing the ALJ's reasoned credibility determinations, and the record supports his findings as to the factual details of the two incidents. Strike violence and attempts to subvert or circumvent the bargaining process cannot be condoned. We conclude, however, that viewed in context these were clearly isolated violations of the Act and must be treated as such for remedial purposes. The supervisors' misconduct consisted of two incidents occurring on one Friday afternoon of a long strike. There is no evidence whatsoever that the supervisors' actions were part of any larger scheme by the company to intimidate the strikers or had any relationship to the company's conduct at the bargaining table. 25 More likely, the supervisors' irrational (and inexcusable) behavior resulted from a combination of too much to drink, 26 overwork, and frustration caused by the protracted strike and its effect on the business. Not only were the assault and solicitation predictably ineffective in intimidating or enticing the strikers, but they were apparently counterproductive, strengthening the strikers' resolve by showing they were finally getting to the company. Cf. Peerless, supra, 484 F.2d at 1120. Walter Dolbow testified that the report of the incidents at the union meeting sort of pulled everybody together at that time. We had almost started to fall apart at that time and the actions of the company did more to unite us than I could have ever done with a big speech. Dolbow said the members were pretty angry and reaffirmed that we would continue to strike to the end. 97 Since the ALJ found that the strike was converted to an unfair labor practice strike on April 12, he made no explicit finding as to whether the supervisor misconduct itself would have converted the strike. 27 We hold that the record would not support such a finding. The only relevant testimony is that of Dolbow, just quoted. Apart from our doubts whether Dolbow's conclusory characterizations of the union's collective reaction would if taken at face value support the inference that these incidents prolonged the strike, we agree with petitioners that the incidents' effect on the union was the exact opposite of what the conversion theory is supposed to prove. As discussed above, pp. 10791080 supra, the rationale of the conversion doctrine is that the strike is expanded to include a protest over (the) unfair labor practice, NLRB v. Top Manufacturing Co., supra, 594 F.2d at 225, and that the strikers remain on strike longer than they otherwise would have in protest against employer conduct which is found ... to be in violation of the Labor Act. R. Gorman, supra, at 339 (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, the evidence showed that the employer's marginal violation of the Act encouraged the strikers to maintain the strike (although there is no basis for concluding that they otherwise would not have) because the supervisors' irrational behavior convinced them that, in Dolbow's words, we're getting to them when they have to resort to this stuff with our pickets. In other words, the supervisors' impotent acts of frustration gave the strikers new hope that their strike was succeeding. Section 8(a)(1) declares to be an unfair labor practice employer conduct which interfere(s) with, restrain(s), or coerce(s) employees in the exercise of their § 7 rights, not conduct which encourages, strengthens, or aids protected conduct. Therefore, the supervisor strike misconduct violations at most support the issuance of a cease-and-desist order.