## Facts

- The Hotel, Motel, and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local Union No. 166, AFL-CIO (the union) sought to organize employees of Aramark Corporation (Aramark) working at the Louisiana Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center.
- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), through its enforcement process, alleged Aramark committed unfair labor practices during the organizing campaign.
- The allegations included that Aramark told employees it would increase benefits if they did not support the union.
- The allegations also included that Aramark threatened to fire employees who supported the union.
- During the unfair-labor-practice hearing, the NLRB issued subpoenas to Aramark for testimony and/or documents.
- Aramark refused to comply with the subpoenas.
- Aramark’s counsel characterized the decision not to comply as a “business decision.”
- Aramark’s counsel also walked out of the hearing at one point.
- The walkout disrupted the hearing schedule and required certain witnesses to return the next day even though they had been scheduled to appear for only one day.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer interferes with employees’ NLRA-protected rights by promising improved benefits conditioned on employees rejecting or withdrawing support for a union during an organizing campaign.
2. Whether an employer interferes with employees’ NLRA-protected rights by threatening discharge based on union support or activity.
3. What procedural and evidentiary consequences may follow in an NLRB unfair-labor-practice hearing when a respondent refuses to comply with Board subpoenas and counsel’s conduct disrupts the hearing.

## Decision

- The case arose from unfair-labor-practice allegations tied to Aramark’s conduct during a union organizing campaign at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center.
- The NLRB proceeding addressed allegations that Aramark used (1) benefit promises linked to opposition to the union and (2) threats of discharge linked to union support.
- The proceeding also addressed Aramark’s refusal to comply with NLRB subpoenas issued in connection with the hearing.
- The hearing record included that Aramark’s counsel described the noncompliance as a business choice and, at one point, left the hearing, affecting witness scheduling and the orderly presentation of evidence.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 7 protects employees’ rights to organize, join, or assist a union, and to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection.
- NLRA § 8(a)(1) prohibits employer conduct that interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of § 7 rights.
- Employer threats of job loss or discharge tied to union support or activity are generally coercive and may violate § 8(a)(1).
- Employer promises or offers of improved wages or benefits, when conditioned on employees rejecting union representation or support, are generally coercive and may violate § 8(a)(1).
- In unfair-labor-practice proceedings, the NLRB may issue subpoenas requiring testimony and production of evidence.
- A party’s refusal to honor NLRB subpoenas can lead to procedural action to compel compliance and may affect how the record is developed, subject to applicable Board procedures and due process limits.
- The administrative law judge may manage hearing conduct and scheduling, including continuances and rescheduling witnesses, when a party’s actions interrupt the proceeding.

## Conclusion

*Aramark Corp. & Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees International Union, Local Union No. 166, AFL-CIO* concerns an NLRB unfair-labor-practice proceeding arising from a union organizing effort among Aramark employees at the Louisiana Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center, focusing on allegations of benefit promises and discharge threats linked to union support and on Aramark’s refusal to comply with NLRB subpoenas during the hearing.


Aramark Corp. & Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees International Union, Local Union No. 166, AFL-CIO, Cases 15-CA-14520, 1999 WL 33452895 (1999)