Opinion ID: 438686
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suspension and Threats to Job Security

Text: 19 Mark Cole was hired first as a laborer on April 28, 1980, subsequently moving to the machine shop as a trainee. On October 17, 1980 he was appointed a Union safetyman and in December he became vice president of the Union. On March 17, 1981, Cole was given a non-disciplinary discharge based on medical considerations. (App. 1072). The General Counsel challenged both that discharge and a prior three-day suspension given to Cole on February 23, 1981 (App. 1068), claiming that Cole was disciplined because of his protected activities. 20 The ALJ concluded that Cole's termination on March 17, 1981 was not the result of protected union activities but was rather due to medical reasons (App. 25-26). That finding is not at issue here. The ALJ concluded, however, that Cole's suspension on February 23, 1981 did violate the Act. 21 Cole was suspended for three days because he allegedly violated H & W's leave early rule on January 30, February 2, and February 6, 1981. See Subpart C of Footnote 1 to Rule 30, note 3 supra. Cole served the suspension on March 3-5, 1981. At trial, Cole testified that he left early on those three occasions to attend to Union business and that he did so with the reluctant permission of his supervisors, (Giannotti and Pyers). (App. 391). This testimony was not contradicted by either supervisor. In addition, the record is replete with uncontradicted testimony from Cole and others supporting the ALJ's finding that Cole was suspended because he had engaged in protected activities. 22 Cole testified that in response to his request for H & W safety records, supervisor Carlyle Bollman told me that I better not ask for safety records anymore, not to worry about them, and that if I said anything else and asked any more about the safety records, that I could be out the door. (App. 357-60). 23 Similarly, Charles Derminer, another H & W employee, testified that Jimmy Giannotti said that he [Cole] was causing a lot of trouble and he would like Mark to get off his back, (App. 339) and that he (Derminer) told Mark to be very careful, that the Company would do anything that they could to get rid of him. (App. 341). Cole corroborated Derminer's testimony, adding [t]hat is what all those officials told me in different ways and in different forms. (App. 366). With regard to a list of workplace hazards Cole presented to supervisor Giannotti, Cole testified that Jim had told me that these complaints were ridiculous, (App. 352), and that Jim Giannotti got mad and said that we were not here to harass each other but we were here to work with each other. (App. 354). 24 The ALJ credited each of the statements referred to above, and it is established that credibility decisions rest with the ALJ as long as he considers all relevant factors and sufficiently explains his resolutions. Edgewood Nursing Center, Inc. v. NLRB, 581 F.2d 363, 365 (3d Cir.1978). This testimony satisfies us that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's implicit conclusion that protected activities were a motivating factor in H & W's decision to suspend Cole and that Cole would not have been disciplined, i.e., suspended, because of unprotected conduct. This testimony also provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion that H & W's threats to the effect that Cole's job was in jeopardy violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 25 We therefore will enforce those parts of the Board's order that required H & W to pay Cole for any loss of earnings and benefits he suffered as a result of the three-day suspension in March 1981, (App. 27-28), and that ordered H & W to cease and desist from [t]hreatening its employees with the loss of jobs because of their union activities. (App. 28).