Opinion ID: 2974386
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Creating an Impression of Surveillance

Text: “An employer who creates the impression that its employees’ union activities are under surveillance violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.” NLRB v. Benteler Indus., No. 97-5588, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15139, at  (6th Cir. July 1, 1998) (citing NLRB v. Aquatech, 926 F.2d 538, 544 (6th Cir. 1991). The Board’s test for determining whether an employer has created an impression of surveillance asks “whether the employee would reasonably assume from the statement in question that his union activities had been placed under surveillance.” Tres Estrellas do Oro, 329 N.L.R.B. 50, 51 (1999); United Charter Serv., 306 N.L.R.B. 150 (1992). The test does not look at the subjective belief of the employee. MTD Prods., Inc., 310 N.L.R.B. 733, 742 (1993). The ALJ found that ProMedica unlawfully created the impression that Hasenfratz’s and fellow-employee Billie Smith’s union activities were under surveillance. With respect to Hasenfratz, a divided Board found that Hasenfratz could reasonably conclude that his union activities were under surveillance because: 1) he received his first coaching only a short time after his name and pro-union statements appeared in a local newspaper article; 2) ProMedica refused to disclose the name of the - 13 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica person accusing Hasenfratz of violating the Policy; and 3) ProMedica “undertook little or no investigation.” The Board relied primarily on Avondale Industries, 329 NLRB 1064 (1999): A supervisor’s calling an employee away from other employees and then telling him that his prounion sympathies were known, but refusing to tell the employee, when asked, how that knowledge was gained, is an action designed to convey to that employee that the information was gained by stealth, and unlawful means, not observation of open and obvious activity (such as [employee’s] bumper sticker). . . . It violat[es] Section 8(a)(1), [by] creat[ing] the impression of surveillance in an employee. Id. at 1265 (emphasis added). Here, as with the employee in Avondale, Hasenfratz openly engaged in pro-union activities. But because his supervisor (Staccone) refused to disclose the source of her knowledge—only telling Hasenfratz that a complaint had been filed—she conveyed the message that she obtained the information by stealth and thus created the impression of surveillance, leaving “undispelled the inference that the source of the complaint was a member of management or an employee recruited to spy on Hasenfratz’s union activity.” That Staccone told Hasenfratz that a complaint had been filed whereas the employer in Avondale did not is a distinction without significance. We do not believe, as ProMedica argues, that “any reasonable employee would understand that [ProMedica was] simply protecting the confidentiality interests of the complainer.” Likewise, that Hasenfratz’s pro-union comments were published in a newspaper article is not a meaningful distinction because the employee in Avondale was also an open union supporter. - 14 - Nos. 05-1660, 05-1735 NLRB v. Promedica Given our decision to enforce this portion of the Board’s order, we find it unnecessary, as did the majority of the Board, to pass on the other allegations of creating an impression of surveillance.5 We grant the petition to enforce the order with respect to the surveillance issue.