Opinion ID: 511694
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements suggesting discriminatory animus

Text: 90 The majority next refers to four isolated statements that it apparently believes show that the union's actions were retaliatory in nature and therefore violated the strike settlement agreements. See maj. op. at 1254-55. 7 The first statement was purportedly an admission of an office manager as to the purpose of the rule. However, the statement in no way pertains to the reasons why the rule was adopted. If anything, it only relates a somewhat inaccurate description of the scope or effect of the rule. Equally important, an office manager does not participate in any way in the formulation of union policy, is not normally knowledgeable as to the motives underlying the union's decisions, and her statements cannot serve to bind the union on the issue of motivation. The second statement was purportedly made by an unnamed office worker, and the third by someone in the Union's office. Again, these hearsay statements, the contents of which were also far from definitive, cannot serve to bind the union, and provide no insight into the union's motivation. The only statement purportedly made by a union official was made by Marty Dolan, a business representative. Dolan simply told a core member that in order to reinstate his full membership he should write a letter explaining why he signed financial core and crossed the picket line, and also why he wanted to be reinstated. Clearly, this statement does not serve to establish the basis of the union's decision to adopt the challenged policy. 91 When viewed separately or together, the four isolated snippets, consigned to a footnote in the Board's opinion 8 , do little more than demonstrate the actual if undisputed existence of the challenged policy. They in no way constitute the substantial evidence as to motivation needed for this court to affirm the Board's order. 92