Opinion ID: 379143
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: interrogation of employee launius

Text: 67 Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. The questioning of employees by the employer regarding their concerted activities can be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) where it interferes with Section 7 rights. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, etc., Local No. 364 v. NLRB, 435 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1970). However, employer questioning of employees regarding their concerted activities is not per se unlawful. Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. NLRB, 565 F.2d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 1977). The test is whether, under all the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with employees in the exercise of their protected rights. Id. at 1080. To be an unfair labor practice, interrogation must be associated with express or implied threats or promises, or form part of an overall pattern tending to restrain or coerce employees with regard to their protected activities. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 435 F.2d at 669. 68 The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the employer in Sparks Nugget unlawfully interrogated employee Gail Launius in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The administrative law judge's determination was based upon its finding that the totality of the circumstances indicated animosity towards the employee for her union activity and that a threat of discharge for any further violation of the company's no solicitation rule was made. 69 This issue presents a close question. However, the inferences drawn from the facts by the administrative law judge and affirmed by the Board are reasonable. Finding substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we enforce the Board's order on this issue.