## Facts

- Pioneer Hotel, Inc. operated a hotel, casino, and restaurants in Laughlin, Nevada during a union organizing campaign in 1994–1995.
- An ALJ found multiple unfair labor practices, and the NLRB largely adopted those findings and issued remedial orders.
- The Board found Pioneer violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) by (a) discharging supervisor Thomas Grace allegedly for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice, (b) interrogating employee Sheila Falk about union sympathies, and (c) directing employees to remove union buttons.
- The Board also found Pioneer violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by restricting employee James Guirey’s access to an employee dining room while he circulated a petition and by later reducing his hours and laying him off due to protected activity.
- The Board found similar §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations as to employee Anthony Zabala based on a suspension, reduction of hours, and eventual layoff during the campaign.
- Pioneer sought judicial review; the NLRB sought enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Pioneer violated § 8(a)(1) by discharging supervisor Thomas Grace for refusing to commit an unfair labor practice.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Pioneer violated § 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employee Sheila Falk about union sympathies or activity.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported § 8(a)(1) findings based on directives to remove union buttons and denial of access to a common employee area for union-related petitioning.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that Pioneer violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by disciplining, reducing hours, and laying off Guirey and Zabala to discourage protected activity and union support.

## Decision

- The court granted enforcement of the Board’s order except for two portions and otherwise denied Pioneer’s petition for review.
- Enforcement was denied as to the finding that Grace was unlawfully discharged; the court held the inference that he was fired for refusing to violate the Act was not supported by substantial evidence.
- Enforcement was denied as to the finding that Falk was unlawfully interrogated; the court held the record did not show questioning that would reasonably tend to restrain or coerce under the totality of circumstances.
- Enforcement was granted as to the directive requiring employees to remove union buttons because the employer failed to show “special circumstances” justifying restrictions on protected insignia.
- Enforcement was granted as to the dining-room access restriction and the adverse actions against Guirey and Zabala; substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of discriminatory motive and retaliation for protected activity.

## Legal Principles

- A court will enforce NLRB factual findings if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, including reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.
- Board findings may be rejected where the agency’s inference is speculative or not reasonably supported by the evidentiary record.
- Employer interrogation violates § 8(a)(1) only if, considering the totality of circumstances, the questioning would reasonably tend to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights.
- Employee display of union insignia (including buttons) is protected by § 7; restrictions are lawful only upon a showing of special circumstances (such as safety or narrowly defined operational concerns).
- Under § 8(a)(3), discriminatory reductions in hours, suspensions, layoffs, or other adverse actions taken to discourage union support violate the Act; the Board may infer unlawful motive from timing, disparate treatment, and inadequate or unpersuasive asserted business justifications.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order as to restrictions on union insignia, limits on access to a common employee area for union petitioning, and retaliatory discipline and layoffs, but refused enforcement where the Board’s findings of a supervisor’s retaliatory discharge and an allegedly coercive interrogation lacked substantial evidentiary support.


Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1999)