Opinion ID: 736236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unlawful Interrogation

Text: 37 Our opinion regarding the validity of AGM's policy affects our analysis of the unlawful interrogation allegation. An employer violates section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating its employees about their union activities. NLRB v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 750 F.2d 524, 527 (6th Cir.1984). The basic test for evaluating the legality of an interrogation is  'whether under all of the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act.'  Dayton Typographic Serv. v. NLRB, 778 F.2d 1188, 1194 (6th Cir.1985) (quoting Rossmore House, 269 N.L.R.B. 1176 (1984), enforced, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir.1985)). Among the factors relevant in determining the coercive effect of employer interrogation are the background of employer hostility to unionization, the nature of the information sought, the questioner's identity, and the place and method of interrogation. Id. An employer with a legitimate reason may question employees concerning union matters without violating section 8(a)(1). See Mead Corp. v. NLRB, 697 F.2d 1013, 1025 (11th Cir.1983). 38 With regard to the unlawful interrogation claim, the Board found it unnecessary to determine whose version of the telephone conversation was credible, because it found that as a matter of law it is unlawful to refuse to hire a full-time paid union organizer because of that status. Yet, the Board ultimately credited Menefee's version of the conversation, which focused on Zell's employment with, not his membership in, the Union. The Board did not consider whether AGM had a valid reason for asking Zell whether he would remain employed by the Union if he came to work for AGM. Because we hold that an employer may assert that it refused to hire a paid union organizer because of a legitimate nondiscriminatory policy regarding applicants who intend to work simultaneously elsewhere, it follows that an employer could ask an applicant whether he or she intends to work full-time for two employers. The nature of the information sought would be related to a legitimate policy of the employer. Id. Consequently, in the absence of other circumstances suggesting that the inquiry was coercive, the interrogation would be lawful. Because the Board concluded that AGM's policy was invalid as a matter of law, it failed to properly consider its relevance to the unlawful interrogation claim, even though it credited Menefee's version of the conversation with its emphasis on Zell's employee status with the Union. Accordingly, the Board's decision with regard to this allegation has no reasonable basis in law. See Pentre Elec., 998 F.2d at 368.