Doesn't matter what they testify, the burden of proof is on them at this point to prove they would have done this anyway, independent of the unionization effort. Which, given that it was suggested to them by the union-busters they hired, is going to be difficult.

The test for such a burden shift is 1) effected employees took a protected action 2) the company knew about it 3) the employer didn't approve of the protected activity. 1 and 2 are trivially proven, 3 is proven by the company hiring union busters.

Not very covert really. A week after workers announced they were unionizing, Grindr hired lawyers who specialize in employer labor relations and what they’re calling “union avoidance” (aka union busting). And then two weeks later Grindr announces their relocation/RTO mandate.

From Littler Mendelson’s website (Grindr’s lawyers):

“We guide companies in developing and initiating strategies that lawfully avoid unions”

But yeah, I agree severance is probably their strategy to limit any pushback the NLRB might have on this, but just not sure how strong of a case Grindr can make. Especially after the recent rulings from the NLRB that gives more protections to workers trying to unionize.

In the US they are federally required to provide severance if it meets certain conditions.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/Layoff/pdfs/Worke...