Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-932-0465-hendrickson.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_932/0465_01/index.html
The phrase is coercive if used to "indicate that the employer will adopt a regressive bargaining stance or lowered benefits to penalize workers for unionization," and it must be "viewed in the context of other statements or actions by the employer."
Despite the deference we owe to the Board's expertise in labor matters, we find that the Board's conclusion is not supported even by substantial evidence.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/932/0465-01 name Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. cite 932 F.3d 465 (2019) # IR court label says Six Circuit; normalized below. court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit date 2019-08-01 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_932/0465_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl sha1=2dc47acb17eb4e76ffbc0e592cc1d6539d11c4d1 chars=42615 law 29usc158 (a) role applied posture Employer review petition and Board cross-enforcement; court rejects coercion findings concerning bargaining-from-scratch and relationship predictions. result claimant-lost element interference : not-satisfied [no-evidence] scope merits variant campaign-speech/from-scratch-prediction-in-context theory from-scratch letter fact @13993..14079 [supports] | The Company and any recognized Union would begin the negotiating process from scratch. fact @16374..16591 [cuts-against] | The company makes clear that its statement is meant to counter any ideas that union representation would automatically lead to an increase in compensation, and that purpose is explicitly allowed under Board precedent. rule @9370..9619 | The phrase is coercive if used to "indicate that the employer will adopt a regressive bargaining stance or lowered benefits to penalize workers for unionization," and it must be "viewed in the context of other statements or actions by the employer." held @16060..16214 | Despite the deference we owe to the Board's expertise in labor matters, we find that the Board's conclusion is not supported even by substantial evidence. gloss This block concerns the from-scratch letter. The court reads timing and the broader give-and-take explanation; it does not approve every threat using the same words. misfit The split judicial views and the statutory protection for nonthreatening advocacy do not fit a single binary speech rule. Statements about deference are recorded as this 2019 court’s approach, not asserted as timeless doctrine. misfit Result is from the perspective of the General Counsel or charging party asserting the employer unfair labor practice, not from the employer-petitioner’s appellate position.