Opinion ID: 4206537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disparagement of union

Text: The NLRB determined that Southern's campaign statements violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by unlawfully disparaging the union in two ways. First, Southern stated that [t]he union appear[ed] to have plans to take our employees out on strike as it had at Hostess, which the Board interpreted as a threat that continued unionization would lead to a strike and plant closure. As discussed above, the Board's conclusion that this statement threatened plant closure was reasonable. We therefore uphold the Board's determination that the statement was unlawful. The Board also concluded that Southern unlawfully disparaged the union by appealing to racial prejudice by its memo to employees stating that it had raised concerns that the [union] was discriminating against Hispanics through targeted grievance allegations. The Board determined that this statement was unlawful because it was not supported by additional evidence. The Board's practice, however, -12- is not to probe into the truth or falsity of parties' campaign statements. U-Haul Co. of Nev., Inc., 341 N.L.R.B. 195, 195 (2004). Moreover, the NLRB has not shown that this statement was a threat to employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). The Board has not identified any case in which such a statement has been deemed unlawful disparagement because it alleges racial prejudice. The NLRB therefore erred in concluding that this statement was unlawful.