Opinion ID: 779052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Specific Violations

Text: 50 Konop argues that Hawaiian managers: (1) interfered with Konop's organizing efforts by viewing the website under false pretenses, (2) wrongfully supported one labor group in favor of another by informing the opposing labor faction of the website's contents, and (3) engaged in coercion and intimidation by threatening to sue Konop for defamation, all in violation of the RLA. Hawaiian argues, and the district court agreed, that Konop failed to present sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on these claims. We disagree.
51 Konop argues that Davis interfered with Konop's organizing efforts by viewing the website under false pretenses. Absent a legitimate justification, employers are generally prohibited from engaging in surveillance of union organizing activities. Cal. Acrylic Indus. v. NLRB, 150 F.3d 1095, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.1998). The reason for this general proscription is that employer surveillance tends to create fear among employees of future reprisal and, thus, chills an employee's freedom to exercise his rights under federal labor law. Id. at 1099. 52 In NLRB v. Unbelievable, Inc., 71 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir.1995), we upheld the Board's finding that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices by eavesdropping on private conversations between employees and [a] Union representative, which occurred in the employee break room. Id. at 1438-39. We see no principled distinction between the employer's eavesdropping in Unbelievable and Hawaiian's access of Konop's secure website. 53 Hawaiian suggests that Davis had a legitimate reason to access Konop's website — to identify and correct any false or misleading statements. Assuming such a concern could justify Davis' monitoring of private union organizing activities, Hawaiian has presented little evidence to suggest that any statements on Konop's website were actually defamatory. Moreover, as discussed below, there are triable issues whether Hawaiian used information it obtained from the website to assist one union faction over another, and to coerce and intimidate Konop. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Konop has raised a triable issue that Hawaiian's access of Konop's website was not justified. 54 Hawaiian also argues that Davis' access did not violate the RLA because it did not appreciably limit Konop's organizing activities. Hawaiian emphasizes that, after learning about Davis' access to the website, Konop restricted access for a mere half-day and declined to temper the language in his articles. Hawaiian, however, presents no authority indicating that employees subject to surveillance or eavesdropping must also demonstrate that they consequently limited their organizing activity. It is the tendency to chill protected activities, not the actual chilling of protected activities, that renders eavesdropping and surveillance generally objectionable under federal labor law. See, e.g., Cal. Acrylic, 150 F.3d at 1099-1100. That a hardy individual might continue his organizing activities undeterred, despite an employer's surveillance, does not render the employer's conduct any less of a violation. 12 55 Accordingly, we find that Konop has raised a triable issue of fact that Hawaiian interfered with Konop's union organizing activity in violation of the RLA by accessing Konop's website.
56 Konop argues that Nobles unlawfully assisted Reno Morella, the union leader who supported the concessionary contract, by disclosing the contents of Konop's website. Generally, the RLA prohibits employers from providing assistance to a union or labor faction. See Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass'n, 897 F.2d 999, 1009 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); see also NLRB v. Finishline Indus., 451 F.2d 1280, 1281-82 (9th Cir.1971) (NLRA prohibits employer from telling workers to withdraw from one union and join another); NLRB v. L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Mfg. Co., 206 F.2d 730, 734-35 (9th Cir.1953) (NLRA prohibits employer from initiating membership drive among his employees for employer-favored union). 57 Konop argues that Nobles disclosed useful intelligence to a rival union faction in an effort to ensure that Konop's faction, which opposed the concessionary contract, would not prevail. Hawaiian does not seriously dispute that disclosure of the contents of Konop's website to Morella would constitute improper assistance. Instead, Hawaiian argues that Konop failed to present sufficient evidence that Nobles made any such disclosure or that Nobles was even familiar with the contents of Konop's website when he spoke to Morella. 58 Morella, however, states in his declaration that Nobles contacted him on December 14, 1995 and informed him that he had just reviewed information which was posted on an internet communications system operated by Hawaiian Airlines Pilot Robert Konop. In addition, Morella states that Nobles also disclosed to me that Konop's internet communications system contained a third written article concerning Konop's efforts to obtain union representation by a labor organization other than the Air Line Pilots Association. This evidence creates a genuine issue of fact whether Nobles was familiar with the contents of Konop's website and whether Nobles disclosed the contents of the website to Morella. 59 Moreover, Nobles confirmed in his declaration that he contacted Morella because he felt that Reno Morella, the Chairman of the ALPA Master Executive Council, should be aware of the newsletter because of its inaccurate attack on the proposed labor agreements and the unfair effect it could have on the ratification process. Nobles thus effectively concedes that he interceded to help ensure that Morella's faction — which favored ratification of the concessionary contract — would prevail over Konop's faction, which opposed the agreement. 60 Accordingly, we find that Konop has raised a triable issue of fact whether Nobles improperly assisted one union faction over another in violation of the RLA.
61 Konop argues that Nobles engaged in unlawful coercion and intimidation by threatening to file a defamation suit against Konop based on statements on Konop's website. An employer's filing or threatened filing of a lawsuit against an employee concerning union organizing activities may, under certain circumstances, violate the RLA. See, e.g., Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 1085, 1089-90 (9th Cir.1995) (finding employer's defamation lawsuit against union violated NLRA); GHR Energy Corp., 294 N.L.R.B. 1011, 1014 (1989) (analyzing whether employer's threat to sue employee for defamation violated NLRA), aff'd, 924 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.1991). 62 Hawaiian does not argue that Nobles would be justified in threatening to sue Konop for defamation. Instead, Hawaiian contends that Konop failed to present sufficient evidence that Nobles ever made such a threat. Nobles stated in his declaration that he did mention to Morella that the gross inaccuracies and lies in the newsletter made by Konop amounted to defamation, but that he never said that [he] intended to file a lawsuit against Konop. 63 Morella, however, indicates otherwise. Morella states in his declaration, Nobles advised me that Konop should be cautioned, or informed, of the possibility of a defamation lawsuit by Nobles. Morella also testified, [I]t was my impression and conclusion that Nobles intended for me to contact Konop, or take other action, for the purpose of opposing Konop's efforts to seek alternative union representation. Morella then informed Konop of Mr. Nobles' statements ... regarding caution with respect to a possible lawsuit against Konop for defamation. Konop confirms the same in his declaration. This evidence is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether Nobles threatened to sue Konop for defamation. 64 Accordingly, we find that Konop has raised a triable issue of fact whether Nobles engaged in coercion and intimidation in violation of the RLA by threatening to sue Konop for defamation.