noting that the challenged policy must be enforced in a "consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion"
How later courts described this case
- noting that the challenged policy must be enforced in a "consistent and nondiscriminatory fashion"
- where court held that as a matter of law, a special circumstance exists where employer enforces a policy that its employees who have contact with the public may wear only authorized unadorned uniforms
- enforcement of NLRB order denied--union insignia on company-owned uniform
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ENGEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I fully agree that the Board was incorrect in finding the ban on *1056 buttons to have been a violation of the Act, I disagree with the majority’s treatment of the coercive questioning issue. While I believe that Barnhardt’s questions to Cynthia Williams about the union were, in the abstract, not coercive, the circumstances in which the conversation occurred provide substantial support for the Board’s findings of coercive effect. Those circumstances were: (a) Barnhardt was obviously part of the company management and had come to the particular outlet in response to the local manager’s call for help, and (b) his questioning came at a time when the restaurant was shut down because of the incident and emotions were still running high. Thus, the conditions surrounding the interrogation were very different from the circumstances in National Labor Relations Board v. Streamway Division of the Scott and Fetzer Co., 691 F.2d 288 (6th Cir.1982), cited by the majority. In Streamway, we found that the questioning concerning a union was not coercive because it was conducted “not by the Company but by a professional attitude survey company” and because the questions were asked in a relaxed atmosphere. Given the very different conditions in this case, I am unwilling to disturb the Board’s finding that such inquiries would tend to have a coercive effect upon the employees so questioned.