Opinion ID: 722569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: discharge of frederick

Text: 16 Dale Frederick was ostensibly fired for violating Tel Data's November 12 phone card policy. Both the ALJ and the Board found this given reason to be pretextual, holding that Tel Data actually discharged Frederick for engaging in protected activity. We hold that substantial evidence supports this conclusion, although this presents a close question. 17 The ALJ found that Tel Data's asserted reason for firing Frederick was pretextual based primarily on the testimony of Tel Data's supervisor, Ricky Nelson. Nelson testified that during the fall of 1991, he overheard vice president Phillip Tournaud refer to Frederick as an instigator of the employees' attempt to enforce the contract and state that Dale would be history. Nelson also testified that he heard supervisor Steve Cowell say in reference to Frederick, I can't help him, he's gone to the union, his days are numbered. In crediting Nelson's testimony over the denials of both Tournaud and Cowell, the ALJ acknowledged that Nelson and Frederick were good friends, but held that Nelson had forthrightly divulged this fact and that there is simply no reason to believe that [Nelson] would fabricate testimony against his employer's interests no matter how strong their friendship may have been. 18 The ALJ concluded that Frederick's protected activity was a motivating factor in Tel Data's decisions to reprimand and discharge him. In particular, the ALJ noted: 1) that these disciplinary actions followed almost immediately after Frederick informed Griffin, at the December 13 meeting, that he was responsible for going to the union on his claim that Tel Data had failed to comply with the CBA; 2) that, in contrast to other employees when confronted with phone card abuse, Frederick, a nine-year employee with no history of disciplinary problems, was given no opportunity to explain his actions before his termination; 3 and 3) that Frederick was the only employee whose calls Cowell actually investigated to determine whether they were personal calls. 4 In sum, the ALJ found that[t]he evidence as a whole convinces me that [Tel Data] decided to make an example of Frederick for having the temerity to insist that it honor all of the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement it had agreed to. This clearly incensed its top management which seized upon the first opportunity available to punish him for doing so. 19 Tel Data attacks this ruling by arguing that the ALJ failed to take into account Nelson's bias based on his close friendship with Frederick. The resolution of credibility questions of this type should ordinarily be affirmed unless they are inherently unreasonable or self-contradictory. Thomas Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 687 F.2d 863, 866 (6th Cir.1982). The record as a whole indicates that Tel Data harbored hostility toward Frederick (and the other employees) who had made an issue of its contract compliance. Tel Data argues also that Frederick's actions in this respect were deliberate and more egregious than that of other employees. Frederick, however, had not been the subject of any disciplinary action in more than nine years with Tel Data. There is substantial evidence to support the findings and the conclusions based thereon as to Frederick. 5 20 We, therefore, AFFIRM the Board's finding that Tel Data discharged Frederick in violation of § 8(a)(3), 6 and we concur in the remedy set forth.