Court Opinion

ID: 9460636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:56:40.25001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:43.119324
License: Public Domain

WEBSTER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Judge Gibson has correctly observed that “[t]he record presents a difficult and close question concerning the evaluation of the testimony”; that the testimony “provides a close question of analysis” ; and that, in an atmosphere free from accompanying unfair labor practices or anti-union animus, “the record is not unambiguously clear that employees thought that benefits would be lost during negotiations.” Under such circumstances, it is difficult for me to conclude that the “bargain from scratch” statement was a threat of economic reprisal in violation of § 8(a)(1). There is evidence, however, that six of the employees did interpret it as meaning that benefits would be lost during the period of negotiations. In light of this evidence, I cannot say that the conelusion of the Board was unreasonable, and I join with the majority on this close issue.
Applying the same test, however, I cannot find unreasonable the Board’s conclusion that the statements of Branch Manager Sikes to Eddie Reed as he prepared for the unfair labor practice hearing were coercive. The coupling of a reference to the “hot rodding” incident some six days earlier with Reed’s upcoming testimony and a warning to “watch what you say” could reasonably be deemed a coercive effort to obtain favorable testimony under an implied threat of job reprisal. It is possible that Sikes intended no connection between the two subject matters of his conversation with Reed, but I cannot say that the Board’s contrary conclusion was unreasonable. Surprenant Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B., 341 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1965). I would enforce the Board’s order in its entirety.