Opinion ID: 4563210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sysco’s Pre-Election Conduct:

Text: Protected Speech or Coercive Threats Under section 8(a) of the NLRA, an employer commits an unfair labor practice when it “interfere[s] with, restrain[s], or coerce[s] employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” by the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). At the same time, under section 8(c), “[t]he expressing of any views, argument, or opinion” by an employer does not constitute an unfair labor practice, as long as the expression “contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(c). That last section “recognizes both the existence of and limits to an employer’s right of free speech under the First Amendment.” Hendrickson USA, LLC. v. NLRB, 932 F.3d 465, 470 (6th Cir. 2019). Distinguishing employers’ protected speech from unprotected threats can prove difficult, however, because “the only effective way of arguing against the union is for the company to point out to the workers the adverse consequences of unionization.” Id. (citation omitted). In Gissel, the Supreme Court explained that the distinction between lawful advocacy and coercive threats turns on whether the employer communicates a predicted adverse consequence of unionization “outside [the employer’s] control” or instead “taken solely on [the employer’s] own volition.” 395 U.S. at 619 (citation omitted). We sustain the Board’s conclusion if the disputed statements— -7- Case Nos. 19-2371/2421 , Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC v. NLRB taken as a whole—had a “reasonable tendency” to be “coercive in effect.” DTR Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 297 F. App’x 487, 493 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Sysco challenges three groups of statements on substantial evidence grounds. 1. Risk of permanent replacement following strike. Two months before the election, Shaeffer and Vice-President Twyman sent a letter to employees, warning of consequences resulting from a strike. In pertinent part: The Teamsters want you to believe that you can’t lose with the Union. THE TRUTH IS: you can lose in good faith bargaining. In fact, YOU CAN LOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BY BEING PERMANENTLY REPLACED IN AN ECONOMIC STRIKE CALLED BY THE UNION OVER ITS DEMANDS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE. Please think about it. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT A TODAY ONLY CONSIDERATION, IT IS A CAREER GAMBLE. And the only way to avoid running the threat of a union strike and losing everything is to VOTE NO in the election. Sysco contends that this letter did no more than lawfully “inform[] employees that they are subject to permanent replacement in the event of an economic strike.” (Blue Br. at 50 (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 263 NLRB 515, 515 (1982)).) Though acknowledging that an employer may inform workers about the potential for permanent replacement during an economic strike, the Board’s General Counsel reminds that a statement loses protection if it “may be fairly understood as a threat of reprisal against employees or is explicitly coupled with such threats.” Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 263 NLRB at 515–16. In context—here, “an aggressive weeks-long, anti-union campaign characterized by pervasive unlawful threats, including other threats of job loss,” says the General Counsel—the letter has the appearance of a threat of reprisal. That’s particularly so because multiple unchallenged unfair labor practices suffused the surrounding circumstances . -8- Case Nos. 19-2371/2421 , Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC v. NLRB Especially problematic for Sysco is the letter’s suggestion that a disastrous strike inevitably will result unless workers vote against the union: “the only way to avoid running the threat of a union strike and losing everything is to VOTE NO in the election.” Indeed, “[a]n employer violates section 8(a)(1) of the [NLRA] by campaigning against the union on the basis that strikes are an inevitable result of unionization.” Autozone, Inc. v. NLRB, 83 F.3d 422 (Table), 1996 WL 200291, at  (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 1996) (per curiam). On balance, the statements look like threats and we uphold this part of the order. 2. Lack of access to supervisors. Sysco challenges the Board’s conclusion that comments by supervisors Joe Quisenberry and Ted Twyman coercively “[t]hreaten[ed] employees with loss of access to supervisors to discuss working conditions if they choose to be represented by the Union.” Quisenberry told an employee “that he would not be able to talk with [him] and others in the same manner if the Union prevailed in the election.” Similarly, Twyman warned that union workers could no longer speak directly with managers about working conditions. An employer lawfully may inform employees that unionizing will curtail its freedom to deal with them directly. NLRB v. Gen. Fabrications Corp., 222 F.3d 218, 231 (6th Cir. 2000). Yet such statements become unlawful when accompanying threats render them coercive. Id. Context matters. When an employee groused about Brewster’s firing, Quisenberry responded by warning him that unionizing would foreclose answering him directly (rather than through a union intermediary, presumably). Quisenberry even asked the employee if he served on the union’s organizing committee. Quisenberry and Brown again threatened this same employee a few weeks later, with Brown warning that “everything would be totally -9- Case Nos. 19-2371/2421 , Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC v. NLRB different” if the Union won. Quisenberry’s and Twyman’s statements were also accompanied by uncontested threats about the loss of benefits and stricter discipline . Given the surrounding context, the Board reasonably concluded that the statements about lost access to supervisors constituted coercive threats. 3. Customer sentiment toward unions and loss of business. During a mandatory meeting, President Shaeffer told employees that the prospect of unionization concerned him because, in his experience, customers preferred non-unionized companies. Shaeffer also suggested that union employees might refuse to do work that falls outside the union contract, posing a “detriment” to Sysco’s business and benefitting the company’s competitors. On appeal, Sysco contends that Shaeffer lawfully expressed his views on customer sentiment toward unions and that the Board thus lacked substantial evidence for characterizing Shaeffer’s statement as a coercive threat. Sysco points to two similar cases: In Pentre Electric, this court considered managers’ statements that they feared erosion of their customer base if the union prevailed. NLRB v. Pentre Elec., Inc., 998 F.2d 363, 366 (6th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (1996). The company president told employees that he “did not think we would have a customer base or we would certainly not have the same customer base if we were to go to union,” because “many of [the company’s] customers did not employ union contractors.” Id. On those facts, the court held that the employer appropriately made “a prediction as to the precise effects he believes unionization will have on his company,” without undue tendency to coerce. Id. at 369–70 (citation omitted). In DTR Industries, the company president sent employees a letter predicting possible lost business upon unionization shortly before a representation election. DTR Indus., Inc. v. - 10 - Case Nos. 19-2371/2421 , Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC v. NLRB NLRB, 39 F.3d 106, 109 (6th Cir. 1994). The letter contained details about the employer’s business model and the potential consequences of unionization due to regulatory and customer requirements. Id. It concluded by warning workers that “[w]e will lose some or all of our sole source business and create the danger of losing the confidence of our customers.” Id. The court determined that the letter consisted of protected employer speech describing “the probable economic consequences of unionization.” Id. at 113–14. Shaeffer’s statements resemble the protected statements in Pentre Elective and DTR Industries more closely than they resemble coercive threats. See also Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. NLRB, 36 F.3d 1130, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[I]f unions are free to use the rhetoric of Mark Antony while employers are limited to that of a Federal Reserve Board chairman, [] the employer’s speech is not free in any practical sense.”). No one disputes that Shaeffer truthfully spoke about his experience working with unions, and Shaeffer stands entitled to communicate his views about “the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside his control.” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 619 (citation omitted). The Board thus lacked substantial evidence to conclude that Shaeffer’s comments constituted coercive threats.