Opinion ID: 220348
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Williamson's Activities

Text: Before we may analyze whether Williamson's 2005 activities were protected by section 8(b)(1)(B), we must determine the nature of those activities. The Board found that Williamson's activities during the relevant period consisted of gathering information and reporting it back to his employer; this is a finding of fact that is reviewed for substantial evidence, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). Chartier testified that he hired Williamson to determine which unions could claim Hydro X's work and which would be the most cost-effective before Chartier got in negotiations with a union. (JA 156-57.) Chartier stated that Williamson brought back information and reported to me about who was interested, who wasn't, what direction we could possibly go and what would be the best interest. (JA 160.) Chartier would decide which union Hydro X would bargain with. Williamson himself testified that, while he could gather information for Chartier, he did not have the authority to negotiate or offer a collective-bargaining agreement at the time Local 324 instituted disciplinary proceedings against him. Furthermore, Williamson argued in his appeal to the General Executive Board of the Operating Engineers in January 2006: My personal total involvement in this contractual process has been to gather information and report my findings to the owner. I was merely doing what I was instructed to do. (JA 318.) In his brief, Williamson makes three arguments that his activities consisted of more than gathering information. First, Williamson claims that he obtained a letter of intent from the Millwrights indicating that the Millwrights were exploring a collective-bargaining relationship with Hydro X. However, the Board found that the only purpose of that letter was to help the Employer obtain work. (JA 7.) This finding is supported by Williamson's own testimony that it was the Millwrights' representative who offered and drafted the letter, and that the significance of the letter was [n]othing other than it gave us the ability to bid work in a plant that worked with the Millwrights. (JA 215-16.) Williamson also argues that he began drafting a collective-bargaining agreement with Ruedisueli, the Laborers' representative, in Fall 2005. However, as described above, Williamson testified that he did not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of Hydro X at that time, and the only evidence supporting his assertion to the contrary is a vague reference by Ruedisueli to put[ting] something together to take back to Ruedisueli's boss and start[ing] a rough draft of an agreement. (JA 200-01.) Ruedisueli admitted that he did not know whether Williamson could execute any agreement, Williamson did not testify about any agreement, and there is no evidence concerning what, if anything, Williamson did to prepare any such agreement. Finally, Williamson claims that he assisted Hydro X in resolving a prevailing-wage issue. The only evidence supporting this contention is that Williamson looked at some of [Chartier's] old agreements with the teamsters that were there previous[, a]nd at the time, [Chartier] had a prevailing wage issue at the bridge in Port Huron. (JA 262.) This is evidence that a prevailing wage issue existed, but not that Williamson did anything to resolve the issue or bring it to Chartier's attention. Based on the above evidence, a reasonable mind could accept the Board's finding that Williamson's duties extended only to investigation, not negotiation, during the relevant period. Cf. Mount Clemens Gen. Hosp., 328 F.3d at 844. The Board's finding is thus supported by substantial evidence.