Opinion ID: 769851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Threats of discipline

Text: 48 General Fabrications also disputes the Board's finding that literature distributed by the Company before the union election constituted a threat to increase discipline if the employees unionized. The document at issue states that with or without a union, employees are required to: 49 Come to work every day. 50 Do a good job when you are here. 51 Follow the company rules and procedures. 52 However, with a union in addition to the above, you will be required to: 53 Follow the company rules and procedures to the letter. . . . 54 J.A. at 135. 55 The Company asserts Section 8(c) as a defense to the unfair labor practice charge of unlawful threats or coercion. See Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 618; ITT Automotive, 188 F.3d at 385. Section 8(c) protects views, argument or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). The Company also relies on Tri-Cast Inc., 274 N.L.R.B. 377 (1985). In Tri-Cast, the employer's letter stated in part: 2. We have been able to work on an informal and person-to-person basis. If the union comes in this will change. We will have to run things by the book, with a stranger, and will not be able to handle personal requests as we have been doing. 274 N.L.R.B. at 377. The Board found that the employer did not threaten improper discipline when it stated that the relationship between it and the employees would change. 56 Substantial evidence exists to support the Board's finding that the Company's statement violated the NLRA. The letter in this case not only describes a change in the relationship between employer and employee in case of unionization, it also threatens workers with changes in work rule enforcement if they unionize. See United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 277 N.L.R.B. 115, 121 (1985). As the Board stated in United Artists Theatre: 57 Such a threat is not in any way a prediction of consequences of bargaining or the result of an agreement with the Union. Rather it is a simple threat to diminish, however slightly, the quality of employee working conditions should the employees select the Union. Such a statement cannot but effect employee sentiment regarding the decision to support or oppose the Union. 58 See also NLRB v. McClain of Georgia, Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1426 (11th Cir. 1998) (finding that increased enforcement of formerly lax disciplinary rules or selective enforcement of disciplinary rules will be upheld as unfair labor practices). 59