Opinion ID: 2974386
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Election Charges

Text: The Board found that ProMedica violated Section 8(a)(1) by inappropriately commenting on the likely impact that the Union election would have on a promised wage increase. We grant ProMedica’s cross-petition for review of this issue, finding that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s decision.
Sean McClure, the acting director of ProMedica’s clinical lab, noted the lab’s unusually-high turnover rate and recruitment problems, and identified as a culprit the low salaries ProMedica paid to the lab’s pre-analytical technicians (“PTs”). He reported his findings to ProMedica’s compensation council, and the council agreed that a raise was in order. But ProMedica’s executive council needed to sign off on the raise before it could be implemented. 6 The Board’s decision notes that “there are . . . no exceptions to the judge’s recommendation to overrule Objection 23, which alleges that [ProMedica], through . . . Kerry Loe, made coercive statements to . . . Marjorie Smith,” though it appears ProMedica did take exception to this finding in paragraph 77 of its “Exceptions to the ALJ’s Decision” document filed with the Board. 7 As with the surveillance charges, the Board ordered ProMedica to cease and desist from threatening employees. Accordingly, so long as there is one violation, any additional violations would only be cumulative and would not affect the remedy. - 17 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica After meeting with the compensation council, but before the executive council acted, McClure asked for and received his supervisor’s permission to tell the PTs “that the wage increase was being approved.” He then instructed two ProMedica personnel, Gloria Florence and Wendy Purcell, “to tell the PTs that the wage increase had been approved.” After the Union filed its representation petitions, however, ProMedica worried that it could not lawfully implement the raise until after the election. McClure notified a PT Supervisor, Barbara Newman, that the raise was “on hold” until after the Union election and Newman relayed the message to the PTs. Similarly, McClure announced at a staff meeting that, on the advice of counsel, ProMedica was not granting the raise at this time, that the matter was with the lawyers, and that he was not sure what would happen. Francis Walsh, ProMedica’s medical director, spoke to about 50 employees and discussed the raise. He told the employees that the raise had been approved in principle, but could not be immediately implemented. He also informed them that, “upon completion of the organizing campaign, irrespective of whether the Union was accepted or rejected, the raise could be brought up again either to be implemented or to be part of the collective-bargaining process.” The ALJ found that ProMedica acted “in good faith and after careful consideration of the applicable law,” but nevertheless concluded that ProMedica violated the Act because the employees “could reasonably conclude they now were not getting their promised wages because of the Union’s - 18 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica filing of the election petitions.” The ALJ continued: “Walsh’s statements could be interpreted by employees to mean that implementation of the increases would be vouchsafed by a union loss.” In affirming the ALJ by a two-to-one vote, the Board concluded that ProMedica violated the Act by implying that only a union defeat in the election could guarantee the implementation of the wage increase. Specifically, the Board relied on Walsh’s statement that, after the election, “the raise could be brought up again either to be implemented or to be part of the collective-bargaining process.”
A violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act occurs “when substantial evidence demonstrates that the employer’s statements, considered from the employees’ point of view, had a reasonable tendency to coerce.” Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 402 F.3d 651, 659 (6th Cir. 2005). Employers violate this section if they promise benefits to employees for rejecting a union. V & S ProGalv, Inc. v. NLRB, 168 F.3d 270, 278 (6th Cir. 1999). A subsidiary rule is that employers may not “state that a previously announced wage increase will probably be lost if a union wins.” Pearson Educ., Inc. v. NLRB, 373 F.3d 127, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (agreeing with the Board that the employer engaged in coercive conduct by circulating a campaign flyer stating that a previously-announced ten-percent raise “was ‘WHAT . . . YOU HAVE TO LOSE if the Union wins the election’” and noting that the flyer “‘explicitly state[d] that the promised wage increase [would] be put in jeopardy if the employees [chose] the Union’”). As the Board noted, “statements . . . convey a threat of loss of - 19 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica existing benefits if they reasonably ‘leave employees with the impression that what they may ultimately receive depends upon what the union can induce the employer to restore.’” (NLRB Dec. at 3 (quoting Earthgrains Co., 336 NLRB 1119, 1119-20 (2001)). On the other hand, employers may permissibly notify employees that, if the union were to win an election, “negotiations would start ‘from zero’ or ‘from scratch.’” NLRB v. St. Francis Healthcare Centre, 212 F.3d 945, 956 (6th Cir. 2000). The appropriateness of such a statement depends on “the timing of the statement, the opportunity of the union to respond, and the content of the union’s responses.” Id. The parties acknowledge that an employer may properly delay a wage increase under certain circumstances, see Sara Lee Bakery Group, Inc. v. NLRB, 61 Fed.Appx. 1, 11 (4th Cir. 2003), and here the Board took issue not with ProMedica’s delay in implementing the raises but with the statements that ProMedica made in explaining the delay. The Board was concerned that Dr. Walsh’s statements conveyed the impression that “the PT wage increase could be in jeopardy if the employees selected union representation, but would be secure if the Union lost the election.” We agree with ProMedica that the Board’s finding lacks substantial evidentiary support. The immediate context of Walsh’s statements belies the Board’s conclusion that the statements would have a coercive effect on a reasonable employee. Walsh made clear ProMedica’s desire to raise wages regardless of the electoral outcome. According to the Board, Walsh explained that a market adjustment of PT wages had been approved in principle by the hospital, but because of the Board’s Rules, no raise could be implemented at this time. He added that, upon completion of the organizing campaign, irrespective of whether the Union was accepted or rejected, the raise - 20 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica could be brought up again either to be implemented or to be part of the collectivebargaining process. (Emphasis added.) The clear thrust of Walsh’s comment was that, one way or another, ProMedica wanted to see the raise happen after the election. Walsh’s brief explanation that the appropriate means of increasing wages post-election depended upon the outcome did not imply that ProMedica’s intentions hinged on the outcome. His statements, viewed in context, could not have improperly influenced a reasonable employee and, as a result, did not violate the Act. Accordingly, we grant ProMedica’s cross-petition for review on this issue and deny the Board’s petition for enforcement.