## Facts

- Two employees, Tracie Rothweiler and Pam Gardner, went to the personnel director’s office for personal, non-work matters.
- As the employees were leaving, personnel director Sandra Easterly asked Rothweiler to remain; Easterly closed the door and spoke with Rothweiler alone.
- Easterly asked Rothweiler why she had joined the union and why employees had not brought complaints to management rather than going to the union.
- Rothweiler responded that employees had tried to raise problems with management but nothing had been done.
- Rothweiler was a union member but was not viewed as an open, active union supporter.
- Rothweiler later described the conversation as friendly and casual, and did not report threats or promises tied to the questions.
- A union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging unlawful interrogation in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the personnel director’s questioning of an employee about union membership and reasons for supporting the union, in a closed-door conversation initiated by management, constituted unlawful interrogation under NLRA § 8(a)(1).
2. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the questioning would reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights.

## Decision

- The NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge’s dismissal of the § 8(a)(1) interrogation allegation.
- Applying the totality-of-circumstances framework, the Board found the questioning was not coercive and therefore not unlawful.
- The Board accepted findings that the questioning was not aimed at collecting information for retaliation and was unaccompanied by threats or promises.

## Legal Principles

- Alleged employer interrogation about union matters is evaluated under a totality-of-circumstances test that asks whether the questioning would reasonably tend to coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights.
- Relevant considerations include the background of labor relations, the identity of the questioner, the nature of information sought, the place and method of questioning, and the surrounding context.
- The same coercion analysis applies even when the employee questioned is not an open and active union supporter.
- Employer questions about union activity are not per se unlawful; absent indicia of coercion (such as threats, promises, or retaliatory purpose), questioning may be lawful.

## Conclusion

The Board held that a closed-door inquiry by a personnel director into an employee’s union affiliation and reasons for turning to the union did not violate § 8(a)(1) where, considering all circumstances, the exchange was casual, non-threatening, and not connected to retaliation or implied adverse consequences.


Sunnyvale Med. Clinic, Inc., 277 N.L.R.B. 1217 (1985)