Opinion ID: 393167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Practical Difficulties With NLRB Interpretation

Text: 35 We also believe that the NLRB's interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) poses substantial practical problems. The NLRB, the unions, and the courts would be required to distinguish between conduct that restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, but does not involve threats of violence or economic reprisal, and conduct that restrains or coerces employees and also involves threats of violence or economic reprisal. This line-drawing exercise, which would be unnecessary if the plain meaning of the statute controlled, would require resolution of difficult issues of fact. 48 36 The facts of this case help illustrate the potential difficulties. The NLRB, which emphasized that no disciplinary action was ever taken against Helton, apparently believes that the union's conduct cannot be viewed as intimidation. 49 It might be argued, however, that the union's conduct carried an implicit threat, namely, that Helton would be punished if he continued his activities on behalf of PROD. Although this question was apparently not explored at the hearing before the ALJ, it is quite possible that Helton was intimidated by the union's action. Thus, under the NLRB's interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), proper resolution of this case might require determining whether Helton felt threatened, whether his fears were reasonable, and whether the union intended to threaten Helton. 50 All of these questions would be avoided if the statute is interpreted to prohibit any action that restrains an employee in the exercise of his Section 7 rights. 37