invalidating election where supervisors’ persistent interrogations of employees about whether they intended to sign cards and warnings about the dangers of not signing constituted coercion
How later courts described this case
- invalidating election where supervisors’ persistent interrogations of employees about whether they intended to sign cards and warnings about the dangers of not signing constituted coercion
- invalidating election when supervisor warned employees and threatened that they would “pay for it” if they did not vote for the union
- supervisors’ persistent interrogations of employees about whether they intended to sign cards and warnings about the dangers of not signing, constituted coercion
- election invalidated when supervisors warned employees and threatened that they would “pay for it” if they didn’t vote for the union
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CRAVEN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
I would accept as supported by substantial evidence the appraisal of the Board that the election environment was fair and uncoerced and would enforce the Board’s order. If anyone were fearful of reprisal in this small company of some 53 employees, I should think it would have been the pro-union supervisors rather than the anti-union employees. As I suggested in my dissenting statement in N. L. R. B. v. Heck’s Inc., 386 F.2d 317, 323 (4th Cir. 1967), it strains reality to suppose anti-union employees may have to submit to tyranny by “disloyal” supervisors — unable to catch the ear of a sympathetic and grateful management.