Opinion ID: 752417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Four Percent Raise

Text: 29 Greenwood contends that both the ALJ and the NLRB ignored overwhelming evidence that Greenwood's anti-union campaign manager, Jay Begley, never promised a wage increase. Greenwood further argues that even the testimony relied upon by both the ALJ and the NLRB does not establish that a promise was made. We disagree that the ALJ and the NLRB ignored evidence, but agree that the testimony relied upon by both the ALJ and the NLRB was insufficient to support a finding of an unlawful promise of a wage increase. 30 According to Pickus and Nelson, statements regarding a raise were made by Greenwood management personnel, including Begley, at a meeting of employees and management held shortly before the union election. The NLRB based its determination that Greenwood had made an implied promise of a wage increase solely upon the testimony of employees Pickus and Nelson. At the hearing, Pickus gave the following answers to the following questions: 31 Q. Okay, why don't you please tell us what happened at that meeting as best as you recall. 32 A.... There was also conversation at this meeting about a 4 percent increase, across-the-board increase. 33 Q. You're talking about a wage increase? 34 A. Right. There was a question ... Mr. Begley, looked at [Miller] and said isn't that right, and [Miller] said, yes, and [Faria] said, we're working on it. An employee, I don't remember who, ... responded[,] Is that over and above our anniversary raise? and the response back was, yes it was. 35 Nelson's testimony essentially mirrored that of Pickus. The ALJ rejected the contradictory testimony, including that of management representatives Begley, Miller and Faria that no such raise was discussed. The ALJ stated that [b]oth Pickus and Nelson appeared on the stand to be truthful witnesses, doing their best to give an accurate account of what happened. I discredit the denials. 36 Greenwood argues that the ALJ should not have relied on the testimony of Pickus and Nelson, while ignoring the testimony of Begley, Miller and Faria. However, the ALJ did not ignore the testimony of these witnesses; she simply did not find their testimony credible. Because the testimony of Pickus and Nelson is not hopelessly incredible or ... flatly contradict[ed] either by the law of nature or undisputed documentary testimony we will not disturb the ALJ's credibility determinations which were accepted by the NLRB. Kinney Drugs, Inc., 74 F.3d at 1427. (citation and quotation omitted). 37 Greenwood also contends that even if we credit Pickus' and Nelson's testimony, such testimony does not support the NLRB's finding that Greenwood had committed an unfair labor practice because Pickus and Nelson never testified that an actual promise was made. 3 A finding of an actual or express promise is not necessary as an implied promise can suffice to establish the necessary element of an unfair labor practice. See NLRB v. Windsor Indus., Inc., 730 F.2d 860, 864 (2d Cir.1984) (Whether overt or implied, promises to employees in the midst of a Union campaign are unfair in that employees must not be lulled into believing that they can obtain benefits without the Union's aid.). Nonetheless, we believe that the NLRB's determination that Pickus' and Nelson's testimony provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that Greenwood implicitly promised a wage increase was erroneous. 38 A promise is an undertaking however expressed that something will happen or not happen in the future. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1815 (1981). In other words, a promise, whether express or implied, connotes a result or outcome that is certain. Here, the most that can be reasonably inferred from statements that the employer was working on a wage increase is that the wage increase was being considered or evaluated by management, not that the raise would definitely be granted in the future. 39 Moreover, to be considered unlawful, a promise of a wage increase must have been made to persuade employees that the increase could be obtained either without the Union's assistance, see Windsor Indus., 730 F.2d at 864, or only if the Union were rejected, see NLRB v. Rollins Telecasting, Inc., 494 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir.1974). The NLRB's determination that the implied promise was contingent on rejection of the Union by the employees is unfounded, given the credited testimony. There is no suggestion that the outcome of the Union election would affect management's decision concerning the wage increase. Certainly there was no suggestion that the wage increase could be obtained either without the Union's assistance or only if the Union were rejected.