Opinion ID: 682429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharge of Johnson and Other Section 8(a)(1) Violations

Text: 8 Section 8(a)(1) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(1). Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157, provides, in relevant part, that [e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.... An employer also violates section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging a supervisor in retaliation for his refusal to engage in unfair labor practices. See Oil City Brass Works v. NLRB, 357 F.2d 466, 470-71 (5th Cir.1966).
9 The ALJ credited the testimony by supervisor and ten-year employee Johnson that he was directed by Company officials to commit numerous unfair labor practices. Johnson testified that, pursuant to instructions by Company officials, he interrogated employees under his supervision about their Union sentiments and reported his findings to Company management. 2 However, Johnson refused to carry out management directives concerning reprisals to be taken against known Union supporters under his supervision. Johnson testified that he was told to (1) follow up on the work of pro-Union employees Temple and Cole to get something on them 3 and (2) plant Company property in the possession of Cole and Temple so they could be fired. In response to these requests, Johnson warned Cole and Temple about the management directives and then reported to McDonald that he could find nothing wrong with Cole's and Temple's work. Johnson stated that on one occasion after he refused to follow the Company's instructions to cold shoulder pro-Union employees, he was warned by his immediate supervisor, James Sanders (Sanders), that Varner wanted to get rid of him. 10 On May 3, 1990, Johnson was called to McDonald's office and told that Varner had ordered that he be discharged. Johnson stated that McDonald commended Johnson on his skills and stated he did not know the reason for the discharge. Johnson stated that he left the plant that morning without being advised of any reason for the discharge. The next day Johnson was told by a fellow supervisor that the Company was stating that it fired him because he was observed by Personnel Director Mel Dupre (Dupre) with his hands in the pants of fellow employee Annette Fairley (Fairley). 4 Thereafter, Johnson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 5 While investigating the EEOC charge, the Company discovered that Johnson had engaged in repeated on-the-job sexual misconduct. 6 11 The NLRB credited the testimony of both Fairly and Johnson that the particular alleged incident of sexual misconduct with Fairley never happened. The NLRB, noting that the Company never investigated Dupre's allegation against Johnson, concluded that Johnson was fired for his refusal to take punitive actions against pro-Union employees. Based on the Company's later discovery of sexual misconduct, the NLRB determined that Johnson was not entitled to reinstatement due to his past sexual misconduct and should only receive back pay up to the time the Company discovered his sexual misconduct. 12 Credible testimony disclosed that Johnson was fired after he refused to: (1) find something wrong with the work of two pro-Union employees; (2) plant Company property on pro-Union employees; and (3) cold-shoulder pro-Union employees. Further, the ALJ found that both Fairley and Johnson credibly denied the incident of sexual misconduct alleged by the Company. Hence, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the NLRB's determination that Johnson was fired for his refusal to commit unfair labor practices in violation of section 8(a)(1). In addition, we affirm the NLRB's determination that the Company owes Johnson back pay for the period of time until the Company discovered his sexual misconduct. See John Cuneo, Inc., 298 N.L.R.B. 856, 857 (1990) (terminating an employee's pay on the date that the Company first acquired knowledge of the misconduct). 13
14 The NLRB relied on the testimony of several witnesses to support its conclusion that the Company had committed numerous violations of section 8(a)(1) through interrogation and threats. Credited testimony included: (1) statements of Johnson and two other former supervisors that in March 1990 Varner and two other Company officials met with Hattiesburg supervisors and told them to interrogate employees about their Union sympathies; 7 (2) Johnson's statement that, in accordance with instructions from Company officials, he informed employees that they could get in the Company's good graces by sending a letter withdrawing their support; 8 (3) statements by employees Cole, Temple, Jones, and Eloise Phillips that Varner declared in several employee meetings that the Union could cause pay to go back to minimum wage, which would result in employees losing various benefits; and (4) Cole's statement that in February 1990 McDonald warned her she could lose her job because of her Union activities. 15 We find that the credited testimony of these witnesses provides substantial evidence to support the NLRB's conclusion that the Company violated section 8(a)(1) by threats, interrogation, and coercive solicitation.