Opinion ID: 2974386
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Threats of Reprisal

Text: An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with reprisals for engaging in protected activity. Wilkie Co. v. NLRB, 55 Fed. Appx. 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing NLRB v. Okun Bros. Shoe Store, Inc., 825 F.2d 102, 105-06 (6th Cir. 1987). “The test for determining whether an employer’s [statement or conduct constitutes an unlawful threat is whether the statement or conduct] tends to be coercive or tends to interfere with the employees’ exercise of their rights.” Okun Bros., 825 F.2d at 105. This is an objective test, requiring the Board to consider the total context in which the challenged conduct occurs; and the Board is justified in viewing the issue from the standpoint of its impact upon the employees. Id. The ALJ found, and the Board agreed, that ProMedica threatened two of its employees, Billie Smith and Marjorie Smith. Billie Smith, a housekeeper at Flower Hospital, was quoted in the same newspaper article that quoted Hasenfratz as favoring the Union. A week later, Billie was called into the office of Gerald Fletcher, Flower’s Director of Environmental Services, where Billie’s 5 As part of the remedy, ProMedica was ordered to cease and desist from “[c]reating the impression among their employees that their union activities were under surveillance,” and was ordered to post a notice to this effect “in conspicuous places.” ProMedica was not required to specifically name any employees as part of the order, and accordingly, so long as there is one instance of surveillance the remedy will be unaffected by findings of additional violations. - 15 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica immediate supervisor, Joyce Wilkerson, was also present. Fletcher told Billie that an unnamed source complained that she had solicited for the Union while on the job. Billie denied soliciting, but admitted she had talked with other employees about the Union while working. Fletcher then coached Billie and told her to converse with other employees during non-working time only because he “did not want to see her get into any trouble.” We agree that Fletcher’s warning not to talk to other employees on the job about the Union constituted an implied coercive threat. As the ALJ noted, Fletcher and Billie had little contact with each other prior to their meeting (Fletcher was not Billie’s immediate supervisor), and the ALJ discredited Fletcher’s testimony that he was “only looking out for his employees.” Given the circumstances surrounding Fletcher’s statements—a high-level supervisor meeting with an employee whom he does not know well, where the supervisor coaches the employee based on an anonymous complaint about the employee’s solicitation for the Union—and given that the ALJ discredited Fletcher’s testimony, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that from Billie’s standpoint, Fletcher’s statements were coercive and thus that ProMedica violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The ALJ also found that Kerry Loe, Toledo Hospital’s patient care supervisor, made coercive statements to Marjorie Smith. But because it is unclear whether ProMedica properly challenged this - 16 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica finding,6 and because additional violations will not affect the remedy,7 we decline to reach this issue. We grant the petition to enforce the order with respect to this issue.