Opinion ID: 47947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: substantial evidence supports all the nlrb's findings

Text: 18 NLRA Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights to collective organization. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Section 8(a)(3) makes it unlawful for employers, in regard to hire or tenure of employment ... to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. Id. at § 158(a)(3). The NLRB found numerous violations of these sections. 19 The violations are based on four findings that Dynasteel now disputes: (1) Goss was not a supervisor, and therefore was an employee covered by the NLRA, (2) Goss and Vaughn were terminated due to their union activities, (3) Edwards, Pearson, Fuqua and Churchill were not hired or considered for hire due to their union activities, and (4) Dynasteel threatened, interrogated and spied on employees to deter the formation of a union. Generally, Dynasteel argues that its witnesses were more believable and should have been credited over union witnesses, but that is precisely the type of judgment we leave to the ALJ. Substantial evidence supports each of the disputed findings.
20 The NLRA generally only protects employees, thereby excluding supervisors from its protections. Id. at §§ 151, 152(3). The NLRA defines a supervisor as: 21 any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other employees, or responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if . . . such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. 22 Id. at § 152(11). 23 The burden of demonstrating Goss's supervisory status rests with Dynasteel as the party asserting it. It falls within the Board's discretion to determine, within reason, what scope of discretion qualifies. NLRB v. Kent. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 713, 121 S.Ct. 1861, 149 L.Ed.2d 939 (2001). Dynasteel argues that Goss was a supervisor on three bases: Goss (1) disciplined Vaughn and Barnes on one occasion, (2) effectively recommended Vaughn's hire, and (3) assigned work and directed employees. 24 The NLRB's finding that Goss was not a supervisor is supported by substantial evidence and was within its scope of discretion. First, it is uncontested that the only time Goss disciplined anybody was hours before he was fired, when he was instructed to write disciplinary memos for employees Vaughn and Barnes. The ALJ credited Goss's and Vaughn's testimony that this was a subterfuge to make it appear that Goss was a supervisor, and that he was unlawfully forced to write the disciplinary memos. 25 As to the second point, even if Goss recommended Vaughn for hire—an issue that is refuted by Goss—there is nevertheless no evidence in the record that his recommendation was of any decisive import. 26 Third, Barnes testified with regard to Goss that, I guess he was supervisor, but I don't know. Goss told him to do littlebitty particular things like sweeping the floor and making welding leads. Such instructions should be considered routine or clerical in nature under the NLRA, and it is within the Board's discretion to decide whether those activities made Goss a supervisor. Kent. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. at 713. 27 Dynasteel's repeated reliance on the fact that Goss was the highest paid employee in his department is almost comical when reminded that the department had only two permanent employees, Goss and Vaughn. Goss had been employed by Dynasteel approximately six months longer than Vaughn, thereby explaining his marginal pay advantage. 28 We conclude that the NLRB was well within its discretion when it found on these facts that Goss was not a supervisor. 29
30 The NLRB found that Goss and Vaughn were discharged in retaliation for attempting to start a union. The ALJ credited Goss's and Vaughn's testimony, finding it to be clear, detailed, and specific and supported by the evidence. Specifically, Goss was fired the day he filled out his first ever disciplinary form and was told repeatedly that he would be fired if he started a union. Vaughn was fired the day he was seen organizing a union meeting. Their testimony and the remarkable timing of their terminations provide substantial evidence that they were fired due to union animus. 31 Dynasteel presented witnesses that claimed Goss was fired for leaving tools unsecured and that Vaughn was fired for taking a company truck to a lunch meeting. But the existence of divergent testimony is not enough to make the administrative findings unreasonable or unsupported. Once again, we are faced with contradictory testimony, and we defer to the NLRB's findings so long as they are reasonable and supported. There is no requirement that they be undisputed. The discredited and highly suspect 3 testimony of supervisors does not compel a finding that Goss and Vaughn would have been fired absent the protected activity. 32
33 There was substantial evidence to support the finding that applicants Edwards, Pearson, Fuqua and Churchill were not hired or considered for hire due to union animus. On Friday, November 2, Dynasteel ran an advertisement seeking welders and fitters for its Memphis plant. The following Monday, November 5, union representative Edwards submitted resumés for himself, Pearson and Fuqua, with each identifying himself as a union member. Two welders were hired that very day, one the next, and one each on Nov. 11th, 13th, 14th, and 16th. The most experienced person hired had five years of welding experience, the same amount as the least experienced of the three union applicants. This provided substantial evidence that (1) the employer was hiring, (2) the applicants were adequately qualified, and (3) union animus contributed to the decision not to hire the applicants. 34 Dynasteel denies that its decision was based on union animus, and claims that the applicants were not hired because they did not complete an application or welding test. 4 But Edwards testified that both a receptionist and Dynasteel's president informed him that a resumé was all that was needed to apply. While Edwards's testimony is enough to constitute substantial evidence, this is further supported by the fact that two hired applicants had no application on file. 35 As for Churchill, who attempted to apply on December 5 wearing a union t-shirt, General Counsel Melvin told him that the company was not hiring during December and would not accept any application materials from him. Melvin did not ask Churchill about his experience or what position he was applying for. Dynasteel hired three laborers in the weeks after Churchill attempted to apply. 36 Dynasteel argues that its activities were consistent with a general plan not to hire welders or fitters during December, and points out that it did not hire any welders after Churchill attempted to apply. But its theory is drastically undercut by the fact that Melvin did not ask what type of job Churchill was applying for. For all Melvin knew, Churchill wanted to be a laborer, and Dynasteel hired three laborers in subsequent weeks. The best account of what happened, and an account that is at least supported by substantial evidence, is that Churchill was turned away because of his union affiliation as signified by his shirt. 5 37
38 Finally, the NLRB adopted numerous findings that Dynasteel threatened, interrogated and spied on its employees attempting to form a union. The numerous threats include: (1) Adcock telling employees that Dynasteel would shut down before it let a union in, (2) Jones telling Goss that there wouldn't be no Union come in here, and (3) Sanders telling Goss he would be the first one fired if a union came in. Interrogations include (1) Adcock asking Goss if they were starting a union and, post-termination, (2) Jones asking Goss why do they want a union? The only incident of surveillance occurred when Jones and Sanders arrived at a company diner during a union meeting and Sanders stepped in, looked around, and left just minutes before Vaughn was fired. 39 Dynasteel's only complaint with regard to these findings is that the ALJ credited the wrong witnesses. Once again, that is a judgment we generally leave to the ALJ and NLRB, and will defer to their findings so long as they are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Dynasteel never shows how the findings were unreasonable or unsupported, so we defer to the NLRB on the matter.