Opinion ID: 768062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threats in Violation of 8(a)(1)

Text: 27 The Hospital also appeals the Board's second finding -- that the Hospital violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act when it made certain statements. The Board panel was unanimous in affirming the ALJ's determination on this charge, see Hospital San Pablo, 1998 WL 881841, at -, and certain aspects of the Board's prescribed remedy relate only to this second finding.
28 Executive Director Jorge de Jesus met with Hospital employees three or four times prior to the February 1997 election. According to the testimony of Hospital employee Cristobal Montesino, de Jesus stated that as a consequence of unionization the Hospital could bring in a private company to do the work the employees were doing and that the employees would then be fired. Montesino, Cruz, and Negron also testified that de Jesus said that if the union won the election the benefits the employees would receive would start at zero. De Jesus denied threatening the employees with either loss of benefits or loss of employment. On appeal, the Hospital says that it merely gave information in a neutral way in response to inaccurate statements from the union. 29 A few days before the election del Ro met with Cruz to discuss a disciplinary warning given to Cruz. According to Cruz, del Ro said that in earlier campaigns the Hospital knew which employees were for or against the Union, that the Hospital had been very good to those employees because it had allowed them to continue working, and that many of them did not deserve to be working there. Cruz replied that if the Hospital knew who was in the Union[,] since Adbal Arroyo was no longer there [then he, Cruz,] would be the first one on the list. Del Ro responded that he should not take it that way because that's not where she was coming from. Del Ro denied making any statements regarding the union.
30 The ALJ credited the employees' versions of what was said at the meetings with de Jesus, and concluded that de Jesus's statements constituted impermissible threats. The credibility of witnesses is for the ALJ to determine, and the reviewing court will set aside such findings only when he oversteps the bounds of reason. NLRB v. American Spring Bed Mfg. Co., 670 F.2d 1236, 1242 (1st Cir. 1982). We have reviewed the record carefully and find no basis for setting aside the ALJ's determinations. 31 Threats of job loss violate § 8(a)(1) of the Act. See NLRB v. Hasbro Indus., Inc., 672 F.2d 978, 985-986 (1st Cir. 1982) (holding that threats to contract work out if the employees voted for the union violated § 8(a)(1)). De Jesus's statement regarding benefits was also a violation of the Act. See Wyman-Gordon Co. v. NLRB, 654 F.2d 134, 145 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding statement that bargaining would 'begin at zero' and work up constituted a violation of § 8(a)(1)). 32 The ALJ also found that del Ro made the statements described by Cruz regarding the Hospital's knowledge of which employees were for the union. The ALJ concluded that those statements and del Ro's statement to Hernandez regarding union organizing activities and the list, see supra note 4, amounted to giving the employees an impression that their union organizing activities were under surveillance. Such coercive conduct violates the Act, see Hasbro Industries, Inc., 672 F.2d at 986-87, and we discern no reason to set aside the ALJ's findings and conclusions in this regard. 33 The Hospital argues that it is simply not reasonable to believe that such statements were made because no employer today would be so blatant as to say such things, particularly during a union organizing campaign. This is a factual argument best addressed to the finder of fact, not to a reviewing court. The facts of record permit a finding that it was reasonable to conclude that the Hospital was indeed so blatant. The ALJ and the Board so found, and that finding is based on substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 34 The petition for enforcement is granted.