Novato Healthcare Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Board found discriminatory discharges after an evidentiary hearing; court enforces order and separately affirms coercive questioning. (result: claimant-won)
Facts
- 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied law
Rocha asked Metellus, who was a relatively new employee, how he planned to vote in the upcoming election.
- 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied law
When Metellus responded that he planned to vote in favor of the union, Rocha told him that doing so would have implications for his pay and that the union could potentially take a portion of his paycheck.
- 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied law
we uphold as reasonable its conclusion that Rocha's questioning was sufficiently coercive to violate the Act.
- 5 Employment discrimination satisfied proved
we deny Novato's petition for review and grant the Board's cross-application for enforcement.
- 5 Employment discrimination satisfied proved
On October 12, two days before the scheduled election, Treude fired all five employees for sleeping on duty.
- 5 Employment discrimination satisfied proved
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by suspending or discharging an employee for engaging in protected union activity.
- 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
Novato proffers no other evidence that Brown and Sabelino were sleeping longer than their permitted break times and no other evidence that Metellus and Bernales were sleeping at all.
- 7 Same action absent unlawful motive not proved
Given the absence of such evidence, combined with the contrary testimony that the ALJ reasonably credited, we find nothing unreasonable in the Board's conclusion that Novato failed to meet its burden of showing it would have fired the four employees notwithstanding its anti-union animus.