Opinion ID: 355906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coercive Interrogation and the Impression of Surveillance

Text: 6 The ALJ's findings that petitioner's manager, John Lee, coercively interrogated employees and gave them an impression of surveillance is based on both Lee's testimony and the testimony of employees. Lee testified that he began asking employees if they knew anything about the union in the fall of 1975. His inquiries were at the behest of the president of petitioner who was concerned about the rumor Lee reported that the men at the Watertown facility were organizing a union. Lee was informed in late 1975 or early 1976 that a concentrated effort to unionize had been launched. Lee gave no indication in his testimony that his inquiries ever ceased. In light of his boss' directive and the information Lee received of increased union activity, the ALJ correctly inferred that Lee's questioning continued well into 1976. To all his questions with one exception, Lee testified that the employees indicated their ignorance of any union activity. 7 Employees testified that Lee asked them individually if they knew anything about the union on several occasions, including in May, only a few days after they signed union cards and several days prior to Carleton's discharge. In response to the May questioning, Mr. Giordano testified that he told Lee the men had signed union cards. Mr. Anderson stated that Lee asked him if he, Anderson, started the union and that Lee said he knew Anderson held a union card. Anderson replied that he did not start the union, that the company knew when it hired him that he held a card and that he had also signed a union authorization card. In response to Lee's further question about who gave him the authorization card, he answered that he did not remember. Mr. Purcell reported that Lee twice asked him if he knew anything about the union and twice stated that Lee knew that Purcell did indeed know something. Both times, Purcell lied and denied any knowledge because he was afraid he might be out the door if Lee thought he was involved in the union. 8 The ALJ found that Lee's conversations with Purcell, whose testimony he credited, had created an impression of surveillance. We agree that Lee's expressions of knowledge of Purcell's union activities were intended to and did in fact give Purcell an impression of surveillance in violation of § 8(a)(1). See, e. g., NLRB v. Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co., 329 F.2d 803, 805-06 (1st Cir. 1964); cf. NLRB v. Simplex Time Recorder, 401 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1968). 9 Several factors persuasively support the ALJ's finding that Lee coercively interrogated the employees. See generally Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964), cited in Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 633 v. NLRB, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 157, 160, 509 F.2d 490, 493 (1974) and in Corriveau & Routhier Cement Block v. NLRB, 410 F.2d 347, 349 (1st Cir. 1969). The interrogation was not an isolated incident but occurred repeatedly over the course of several months. Compare with Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local 633 v. NLRB, supra, 166 U.S.App.D.C. at 162, 509 F.2d at 495. Although the questioning was generally informal and performed by Lee who was not a top executive of the company, Lee had sole control over discharge decisions. Inquiries by a man in Lee's position could and did suggest to at least Purcell that a pro-union answer would result in reprisal. See NLRB v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc., 298 F.2d 895, 898 (1st Cir. 1962) (impact on employees determinative of legality). Compare with NLRB v. Prince Macaroni Manufacturing Co., 329 F.2d at 806 (employee who spoke freely of union activities was not intimidated by questioning). The impression of reprisal is further reinforced by the fact that Lee's inquiries were not simply general but asked for identification of the instigator. Lastly, Lee admitted that he told the employees that another of petitioner's facilities had ceased operations in reaction to a union organizing effort and that the Watertown facility might likewise close, leaving them all without jobs. He further admitted that he had in fact no reason to believe the company planned to close the Watertown facility. The ALJ noted that such a threat of plant closure would constitute a violation of § 8(a)(1) but did not consider it because the conversation may have occurred beyond the period covered by the complaint. However, such a statement contributes to the climate of coerciveness that surrounded the subsequent interrogation. See Corriveau & Routhier Cement Block, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 410 F.2d at n. 2.