Opinion ID: 769851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Threats of plant closure

Text: 41 On a Sunday in November, employees Gerald Rahm, who supported the union, and Terry Trusdell, who opposed it, spoke with Boraski. The ALJ credited Rahm's testimony regarding the discussion. Rahm stated that during that meeting, Trusdell spoke out against the union. Rahm expressed concern about his job. Rahm stated that Boraski responded by taking out a set of keys, holding one up, and asking Rahm if he knew what it was. Rahm said it was a key. Boraski asked A key to what? Rahm replied, The building. Boraski stated, That's right, and I can close it and move it anytime I want to. 42 Boraski, on the other hand, testified that the meeting had taken place, but that he did not make the alleged statements. Trusdell did not testify. 43 As noted above, [w]hen there is a conflict in the testimony, 'it is the Board's function to resolve questions of fact and credibility,' and thus this court ordinarily will not disturb credibility evaluations by an ALJ who observed the witnesses' demeanor. Turnbull Cone, 778 F.2d at 295 (quoting NLRB v. Baja's Place, 733 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir.1984)). The Company does not provide this court with a reason to disturb the ALJ's credibility findings and the determination that Boraski's statement violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA in this instance.