Opinion ID: 2995547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The ALJ’s Decision and The Board’s

Text: Conclusions and Order In August 1995, the union filed charges against LSF claiming that it had violated sec.sec. 158(a)(1) & (3) & (5) of the NLRA, which prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employee efforts to organize or bargain collectively and discriminate against employees based upon their membership in a labor organization. The union contended that LSF violated the Act when it interrogated and harassed employees regarding their union activity when it imposed more restrictive work rules, and when it discharged seven union supporters. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a six-day hearing and both the union and the company presented witness testimony as well as written evidence in support of their respective positions. The ALJ made extensive findings of fact and issued a 53-page decision. In short, the ALJ found that the company’s pre- election campaign of harassment violated sec.sec. 158(a)(1) & (3) & (5) of NLRA and that the terminations of the employees, as well as their changes in assignments or constructive discharge, of Mark Hasse, Ron Holland, Michael Dooley, Dennis Hill, Walter Michaels, William Owens, and John Kawa were in violation of the Act. Much of the ALJ’s decision rested upon his findings that discredited the testimony of LSF officials while crediting that of the employees. LSF appealed the ALJ’s decision to the National Labor Relations Board, excepting to the ALJ’s determination that its pre- election conduct violated sec. 158(a)(1) and to the determination that its conduct towards Hill, Michaels, Owens, Kawa, and Hasse violated sec. 158(a)(3)./2 The Board affirmed the ALJ’s rulings and findings with some modifications not relevant to this appeal, with one member dissenting with regard to the Board’s affirmance of the portion of the ALJ’s ruling concerning Kawa and Michaels. LSF requests us to review the Board’s action in affirming the ALJ.