The Seventh Circuit noted that the record contained a transcript of a meeting in which an official of the employer: (1) warned employees of possibility of losing benefits/wage rates if union were to negotiate on their behalf; and (2) made implied promise of wage increase to deter employees from supporting union.
The fact that official did not directly threaten the employees or that the official relayed possible negative outcomes to unionization that had occurred in other cases did not require different result.
In addition, the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence that employer's anti-union views played role in the employee's termination, where: (1) one official from employer had previously received voicemail accusing the employee of pro-union activity and of having a driving infraction; (2) a supervisor, who had previously displayed hostility toward union, played consulting role in the employee's termination; and (3) the employer's explanation for the employee's termination (job abandonment) was not supported by record.