# National Labor Relations Board v. Okun Brothers Shoe Store, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 29, 1987 · 825 F.2d 102

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476516

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. OKUN BROTHERS SHOE STORE, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 29, 1987
- **Citations:** 825 F.2d 102; 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3343; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 10036
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jones
- **Judges:** Engel, Jones, Krupansky
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476516

## Opinion text

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Part I of Judge Engel’s opinion enforcing the Board’s order that Okun Brothers cease and desist from threatening employees with a reduction in hours and less favorable working conditions. I also concur in Part II of Judge Engel’s opinion to the extent that it denies enforcement on the “interrogation” issue. Like my fellow judges, I find the record as a whole lacking in substantial evidence to support the inference that Nezamus’ inquiry of Weston regarding the sign-up progress was either intended to be, or taken as, coercive. However, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of Part II and the court’s denial of enforcement on the “implied promises” issue.
Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, this circuit has not ascribed talismanic significance to an employer’s disclaimer of promises when the question presented is whether there were implied promises to redress grievances in violation of section 8(a)(1). See NLRB v. Arrow Molded Plastics, Inc., 653 F.2d 280, 282-83 (6th Cir.1981). Furthermore, in reviewing findings of implied promises, both logic and law require that we defer to the ALJ, who had the opportunity to view live testimony, as well as to the Board, which has the administrative expertise in such matters. We have always held that the Board’s reasonably drawn inferences concerning coercive effect “will not be set aside on review, even though a different inference or conclusion may seem more plausible and reasonable to us.” Surprenant Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 756, 760 (6th Cir.1965); accord NLRB v. Garon, 738 F.2d 140, 141-42 (6th Cir.1984). I find substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s inference of “implied promises” and would enforce that portion of the Board’s order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476516. Public record. Not legal advice.