Opinion ID: 421699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board's Supplemental Decision

Text: The Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order on December 16, 1982, 3 in which it concluded that: [T]here was no danger that a prounion group leader bent on retaliation could accomplish that end .... The type of day-to-day supervisory authority possessed by these group leaders simply did not afford the opportunity for effective retaliation against anti-union employees.... Accordingly, we affirm our earlier holding that the prounion statements and activities of the group leaders did not reasonably tend to coerce employees and impair the employees' freedom of choice so as to justify setting the election aside. The Board found this result to be consistent with its decisions in Delchamps, supra, and Flint Motor Inn, supra, because the respective supervisors in those cases exercised major supervisory authority, such as the authority to hire and discipline.