Opinion ID: 708184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Recommendation of the ALJ

Text: 11 Not long after being laid off, on March 13, 1992 and March 26, 1992, respectively, Wright and Kehl filed unfair labor practice charges against WFB. The General Counsel of the Board issued a consolidated complaint on April 16, claiming that WFB's agents made coercive statements to employees, violating Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act, and laid off Wright and Kehl for discriminatory reasons in violation of Secs. 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act. 12 A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (the ALJ) on August 18. The ALJ concluded that WFB violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by reason of Ring's statement, but concluded that WFB did not lay off Wright and Kehl in violation of Secs. 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). Although he found that Wright and Kehl had engaged in protected activities within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ declined to find that WFB laid them off because of those activities. 13 According to the ALJ, neither Ring's statement nor Tisher's throwing down the CBA evidences animus towards Wright or Kehl. Ring's remark does not show animus toward them, the ALJ reasoned, because it was not directed at Wright or Kehl individually and was made without the intent of firing anyone. Tisher's throwing down the CBA does not demonstrate animus toward Wright and Kehl, because it falls short of proof that Tisher would be willing to fire an employee for engaging in protected activity and because it was directed at Minke, if at anyone. 14 The ALJ also declined to find that WFB showed animus toward Wright and Kehl on the basis of management's responses to the employees' complaints. He noted that Tisher rarely seemed perturbed by the employees' complaints and seems to have found Tisher reasonably responsive to the painters' complaints. As to the paycheck dispute in particular, the ALJ found it hard to imagine why Kehl's complaints would have been unduly troubling to management. 15 Finding that the General Counsel had failed to show that no layoffs were warranted on January 10, that WFB ordinarily lays off painters according to seniority on the job, or that WFB supervisors were angered enough by Wright's and Kehl's protected activities to consider ending their employ, the ALJ placed the burden on the General Counsel to show that Tisher's stated reasons for laying off Wright and Kehl were false. The judge credited the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses that Wright and Kehl were experienced painters who were perfectly capable of performing the trim work, but nevertheless held that such evidence falls short of proving that Tisher could not reasonably have concluded that, relative to the other painters, Wright and Kehl were not as productive at the particular kinds of work that remained to be done as of January 10.