Reprisal involves acting or threatening to take an action against someone who constitutionally preserves a human rights complaint or someone who is a witness to some acts of discrimination, which is not allowed under the law. One cannot be punished or issued with threats with punishment for making attempts to file a complaint, filling a human rights grievance, or even witnessing at a human rights trial/hearing (Grimal, 2012).
It holds no water for the NLRB to set the election aside on grounds that the supervisor drove around past the meeting of the union. The union is being so much paranoid and cannot call off the results of the election simply because of such a reason. Though the union members may be feeling the threat that they were identified for reprisal, it connects little with the supervisor driving around them but they are just being paranoid to exercise they constitutional right and contempting the supervisor on threat of reprisal is too way much paranoid (Grimal, 2012).
McCarthyism can be evident of the union. It is wrong to accuse one of any kind of treason or subversion without accurate and surety for tangible evidence. The group is unfair to make false accusations and allegations against the supervisor for threat of reprisal to restrict his freedom to even move around the meeting place for they lack fair investigative methodologies and the supervisor just driving past their meeting is no evidence enough to show that he was up to a mission of threat of reprisal. Simply, the union is just paranoid, inviting b and acting in fear against the supervisor for no apparent and evident cause. It will be too harsh if the supervisor is charged on threat for reprisal for he has just cited curiosity and taken no action in any way to prove that he has highlighted any member of the union for reprisal (Grimal, 2012).
Francis Grimal, (2012), Threats of Force: International Law and Strategy, Routledge.