NLRB Rules Rat Display at Secondary Employer Premises is Lawful

The National Labor Relations Board has declared lawful the union practice of displaying large inflatable rat balloons at a secondary employer’s premises to protest the labor practices of a separate non-union contractor.  Upon remand from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical Center), 356 NLRB No. 162 (May 27, 2011), a 3-1 Board majority extended the rationale set forth in Carpenters Local 15006 (Eliason & Knuth of Arizona, Inc.), 355 NLRB No. 159 (2010), which found a union's display of large stationary banners at a secondary employer's premises  -- a hospital -- was not unlawful.

Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits conduct found to “threaten, coerce, or restrain” a secondary employer not directly involved in a primary labor dispute, if the object of that conduct is to cause the secondary to cease doing business with the primary employer.  "Picketing" that seeks a consumer boycott of a secondary employer is generally considered unlawfully coercive. Simple handbilling with the same object is, on the other hand, generally protected speech. 

The Board majority here found that the balloon display -- a giant, rabid rat -- did not involve "confrontational conduct," and was thus unlike picketing.   The majority noted that the union agents did not move, shout, impede access, or otherwise interfere with the hospital’s operations.  The Board concluded that much as the mock funeral procession with coffin and costumed Grim Reaper that the union staged outside the hospital:

[the] rat balloon itself was symbolic speech.  It certainly drew attention to the Union’s grievance and cast aspersions on [the contractor], but we perceive nothing in the location, size or features of the balloon that were likely to frighten those entering the hospital, disturb patients or their families, or otherwise interfere with the business of the hospital.

By the combination of holdings in Eliason & Knuth, its progeny, and now this case, the Board has significantly eviscerated the secondary boycott provisions of the Act.  Now, so long as the union does not place the signs or huge protest objects on sticks or include "moving" supporters in connection with the display, the Board appears content to allow a union to apply pressure upon neutral employers at their places of business. 

Member Brian Hayes dissented:

Considered in the abstract, or viewed from afar, the display of a gigantic inflated rat might seem more comical than coercive.  Viewed from nearby, the picture is altogether different and anything but amusing. For pedestrians or occupants of cars passing in the shadow of a rat balloon, which proclaims the presence of a “rat employer” and is surrounded by union agents, the message is unmistakably confrontational and coercive.

Ironically, the inflatable rat used by unions in these protests is manufactured in Plainfield, Illinois -- in a non-union shop.

WaPo Opinion: "Labor's Hail Mary Pass"

In today's Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson chronicles frustration with the state of the labor movement in America and the resulting shift in the organizing strategy of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.  In "Labor's Hail Mary Pass," he asserts this shift "reflects a belief that the American labor movement may be on the verge of extinction and must radically change its game."

After highlighting the failure of successive administrations to overhaul the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, he discusses the new strategic approaches these prominent labor organizations are taking in the face of dwindling private-sector union representation:

While some unions still wage more conventional organizing campaigns, the campaign that best captures the desperation of American labor today is that of the SEIU. Perhaps the best-funded and most strategically savvy of American unions, SEIU has embarked on a door-to-door canvass in the minority neighborhoods of 17 major American cities. The goal isn’t to enroll the people behind those doors in a conventional union but, rather, into a mass organization of the unemployed and the underpaid that can turn out votes in 2012 and act as an ongoing pressure group for job creation and worker rights during (presumably) Barack Obama’s second term.

“We realized we could organize one million more people into the union and it wouldn’t in itself really change anything,” SEIU President Mary Kay Henry told me earlier this year. “We needed to do something else — something more.”

The SEIU’s program — like its semi-counterpart in the AFL-CIO’s Working America program, a door-to-door canvass in white working-class neighborhoods — will surely help Democatic candidates, despite the frustrations that nearly all labor leaders feel toward the party. But, like Working America, it signals a strategic shift by American labor, whose ranks have been so reduced that it now must recruit people to a non-union, essentially non-dues-paying organization to amass the political clout that its own diminished ranks can no longer deliver. Since labor law now effectively precludes workplace representation, unions are turning to representing workers anywhere and in any capacity they can. It’s time, they’ve concluded, for the Hail Mary pass.

Read the entire piece here.

NLRB Social Media Complaints Coming Daily? Another "Facebook Firing" Case Out of Chicago

Two days after issuance of the complaint in Hispanics United of Buffalo, Case No. 3-CA-27872, the National Labor Relations Board issued another complaint against a company for a termination arising out of employee use of social media.  In Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., Case No. 13-CA-46452, the Board alleges that a car dealer unlawfully fired a salesperson for Facebook comments critical of the employer.

Paragraph IV of the complaint reads simply:

(a) On or about June 14, 2010, Charging Party Becker posted on his Facebook page employees' concerted protest and concerns about Respondent's handling of a sales event which could impact their earnings.

(b) On or about June 22, 2010, Respondent discharged Charging Party Becker.

(c) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph IV(b) because Charging Party Becker engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph IV(a) and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities.

This is just the latest in a recent string of cases handled by the Board arising out of employer efforts to control employee social media use which might impact its interests.  Recognizable patterns are starting to emerge in the Board's treatment of these cases:

  • The Board will take an aggressive approach toward workrules and policies -- including social media policies -- which are arguably "overly broad," or might be interpreted to restrict employees' in the exercise of protected, concerted activity.
  • The Board will consider "protected" any social media postings which are either made on behalf of other employees or made with the object of inducing or preparing for group action.  This is a broad, and currently expanding, standard.
  • Simple personal attacks posted off-the-clock, outside the workplace -- even offensive or profane insults -- may retain the protection of the Act if they even arguably arise out of concerted activity, terms or conditions of employment, or other alleged ULP's. 

Employers would be wise to review their social media policies in light of the Board's evolving approach and these principles.

 

Media Round-Up: NLRB Complaint Against Boeing

Rep. Issa (R-CA) Seeks Information From National Mediation Board Regarding "Radical" Rule Change

On May 11, 2010, the National Mediation Board announced that it was changing a decades-old rule regarding the way votes are counted in union representation elections under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).  By letter dated May 17, 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the Chairman of the NMB expressing concern over the change and requesting information regarding the change. 

Under longstanding RLA interpretation, a union would only be certified as a bargaining representative of a group of employees if a majority of all eligible voters cast ballots in favor of unionization -- the "majority in unit" standard.  The new standard, the "majority of votes cast" standard, essentially the standard applied by the National Labor Relations Board in elections under the NLRA -- a union is declared the representative of a unit of employees if a majority of the employees who cast valid ballots vote for union representation.

Rep. Issa's letter identfies a number of concerns with the change: exclusion of the Chairman from the consideration process; the influence of particular labor unions on the composition of the Board; and, the refusal to publish dissenting minority views, among other concerns.  In light of these concerns, and the "radical shift in the Board's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act," Rep. Issa requested production of a wide variety of documents in connection with the decision.  The letter requests designation of an NMB representative to provide a briefing by May 24, 2011, and production of the documents by June 1, 2011.

This is not the first challenge to the new rule.  On May 17, 2010, an association of airlines filed suit to block the rule, and a few weeks later, the NMB agreed to hold up implementation of the rule until June 30, while the Court considered the parties' respective motions.  That challenge failed and the rule became effective as of July 1, 2010. 

Last May, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced S.J. RES. 30, a Joint Resolution to express "congressional disapproval" of the NMB's administrative action.  The Senate voted 56 to 43 against the resolution.  This past February, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced legislation to reverse the rule change. The "Restoring Democracy in the Workplace Act" (H.R. 548) was intended to repeal a rule published by the NMB on May 11, 2010, and the related regulations, but has gone nowhere beyond committee to date.

NLRB Issues Another Complaint Against An Employer For Facebook-Related Terminations

The National Labor Relations Board has issued another complaint arising out of employee discipline for use of social media. The Board published a press release this evening announcing that a complaint was issued May 9, 2011 by the Regional Director in Buffalo, New York against Hispanics United of Buffalo, a nonprofit organization.  The complaint alleges that the employer unlawfully discharged five employees after they criticized working conditions on Facebook. 

While the complaint is not yet posted on the NLRB website as of this date, the Board's press release indicates that five employees responded to a co-worker's Facebook post with comments defending their job performance and criticizing working conditions, including work load and staffing issues. These employees were subsequently terminated by the employer who claimed their comments constituted harassment of a co-worker involved.  The press release states:

The complaint alleges that the Facebook discussion was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, because it involved a conversation among coworkers about their terms and conditions of employment, including their job performance and staffing levels. 

A hearing is set before an administrative law judge on June 22, 2011, in the Buffalo Regional Office.

This is just the second complaint issued by the Board arising out of social media issues, although a number of similar charges have recently settled prior to issuance of a complaint.  In April, various media outlets reported that the New York Regional Office had notified Thomson Reuters that it was preparing to issue a complaint including an allegation that the publisher improperly warned a union officer about a Twitter post.  The employee's union, the New York Newspaper Guild, recently announced a comprehensive contract settlement which included resolution of the charge.  On April 27, 2011, the San Francisco Regional Office also announced settlement of a charge against an online construction retailer who terminated an employee who had posted comments on Facebook about alleged labor code violations.  Finally, late that month, the Division of Advice also issued an Advice Memorandum recommending dismissal of a Twitter-based charge, perhaps providing further guidance regarding the Board's approach to these cases.

NLRB Division of Advice Recommends Dismissal of Twitter Termination Charge in Arizona

On April 21, 2011,the Division of Advice issued an Advice Memorandum recommending dismissal of a charge alleging that a newspaper reporter was unlawfully terminated for Twitter posts – some of which involved his employer. In Lee Enterprises, Inc., Case No.28-CA-23267, the employer, the Arizona Daily Star newspaper, had no written social media policy. During 2010, the charging party, a public safety reporter, posted Twitter messages mocking the employer’s sports editors, joking about homicides in Tucson, Arizona, and insulting other local media outlets.

After forbidding the employee to Tweet about “anything work-related” pending the outcome of an investigation, the employer ultimately suspended and then fired him.  His termination notice read, in part:

Despite the multiple warnings, suspension and final verbal notice issued as recently as February 2010, when you were told to refrain from using derogatory comments in any social media forums that may damage the goodwill of the company, you have again disregarded that guidance.

The Division of Advice concluded that the reporter’s termination did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because his inappropriate Twitter posts “did not involve protected concerted activity.”  More specifically, the Division noted that his posts did not relate to the terms and conditions of his employment, nor did he seek by these posts to involve other employees in issues related to employment.

The Division expressed some concern that the employer made overly broad statements to the employee that could be interpreted to prohibit Section 7 activities. Among these were a warning “to stop airing his grievances or commenting about the Employer in any public forum,” the instruction not to tweet about “anything work-related,” and the termination notice’s reference to “derogatory comments in any social media forums.”  On balance, however, the Division declined to consider these comments to constitute a verbal “rule” or policy. Rather, they were made solely to the charging party in the context of otherwise lawful discipline, and were not communicated to a broader audience of employees.

Perhaps the most interesting element of the Advice Memorandum, however, is a discussion which would appear to be dicta. Although the General Counsel’s office clearly indicated it did not find an unlawful overly broad social media policy at issue in the case, it suggested strongly that it still would have considered the charging party’s termination lawful under such a policy. After acknowledging that the Board has consistently held that “an employer’s imposition of discipline pursuant to an unlawfully overbroad policy or rule constitutes a violation of the Act,” the Memorandum clarifies that discipline pursuant to an overbroad rule has been held to be unlawful “only where the underlying conduct involved Section 7 activity.” 

Senator Alexander (R-TN) and 33 Republican Co-Sponsors Introduce Bill to Clarify Interplay Between NLRA and State Right to Work Laws

Yesterday, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) took to the floor of the Senate to introduce the "Jobs Protection Act" (S. 964).  The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and thirty-one other Republican Senators, would by Sen. Alexander's description:

    • clarify that the NLRB would not be able to order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another.

    • guarantee an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States.

    • protect an employer’s free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination claim

The text of the bill, currently identified as "A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the applicability of such Act with respect to States that have right to work laws in effect" is not yet available online.  Senator Alexander last week, however, submitted a proposed amendment to a small business bill intended to accomplish the same stated intentions.  The Senator's comments today suggest that the stand-alone legislation may contain additional or broader language than the amendment previously submitted.  We should know shortly.

 

NLRB Issues Complaint Against Union for Unilaterally Printing Weingarten Statement on CBA

Law360 (subscription) reports today on a Complaint issued by the NLRB against the California Nurses Association for unilaterally printing a statement regarding employee "Weingarten Rights" on the inside cover of its CBA with various healthcare institutions.  The Complaint alleges that this conduct violates the employees' rights to refrain from union activity, as well as the Act's requirement that parties refrain from unilateral modifications to the terms of their agreements.  From Law360:

Printing the rights on collective bargaining agreements implies that employees must have a union representative present, impeding their right to choose to avoid unions altogether, the complaint says. Moreover, including the text on the agreements without the employers' permission amounts to unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of employment, the office claims.

  *  *  *

The 227-bed Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union in October. The CNA has represented the hospital's full-time, part-time and per diem registered nurses since 2000, the complaint says.

The hospital and the union signed off on a collective bargaining agreement in April 2009, and the union was supposed to print up copies for the employees but instead distributed copies to employees that include a copy of the Weingarten Rights printed on the back, according to the complaint.

The hearing in this case is scheduled for August 1, 2011 in Los Angeles.

Media Round-Up: NLRB Complaint Against Boeing

National Labor Relations Board Sues Arizona Over Secret Ballot Amendment

The National Labor Relations Board this afternoon filed suit against the State of Arizona in the federal District Court for the District of Arizona.  Consistent with its previous announcement of its intent to do so, the Board is seeking a Declaratory Judgment proclaiming Arizona Constitution Article 2 § 37 pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act. 

Article 2 § 37 of the Arizona Constitution, approved by voter referendum on November 2, 2010, states: 

[t]he right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation is fundamental and shall be guaranteed where local, state or federal law permits or requires elections, designations or authorizations for employee representation.

After citing sections of the NLRA which pertain to the designation or recognition of a union representative, the Board's Complaint asserts:

The NLRA permits but does not require secret ballot elections for the designation, selection, or authorization of a collective bargaining representative where, for example, employees successfully petition their employer to voluntarily recognize their designated representative on the basis of reliable evidence of majority support, in accordance with Sections 7 and 9 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 159, or where a construction union seeks recognition from a construction employer in accordance with Section 8(f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(f).

Moreover, argues the Board, the provision ought to be preempted "insofar as it creates a parallel state enforcement mechanism for protecting employee representation rights that Congress assigned to the National Labor Relations Board."

Following an earlier exchange of positions between the Board and four states on this issue, several witnesses at a February 11, 2011 hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce encouraged that this dispute be resolved by Congressional action on the Secret Ballot Protection Act.  That Act, which would require secret ballot elections in federal union representation proceedings, was introduced by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on January 27, 2011 and Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) on March 15, 2011.

The State Attorneys General responsible for enforcing their states' secret ballot protection measures responded strongly to the initial threats by the Acting General Counsel to initiate litigation.  In the face of politically charged reactions to other recent choices, the Acting General Counsel is showing no signs of embracing a less aggressive approach going forward.

Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to Introduce National Right to Work Protection Legislation

During floor debate on the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act (S. 483), Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-TN) would be introducing a bill entitled the "National Right to Work Protection Act."  Sen. Alexander introduced the proposal thus:

I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation which will be both a bill that Senator Graham and Senator DeMint and I will introduce tomorrow and an amendment that I have filed to the small business bill on behalf of the three of us.

We are calling it the Right to Work Protection Act, and it is our intent to preserve the right of each State to make a decision for itself about whether it will have a right-to-work law and have an ability to enforce it. ...

The text of the stand-alone bill is not yet available online, but the language submitted as Amendment SA 303 reads as follows:

 SEC. __. PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.

    (a) Applicability of NLRA to State Right to Work Laws.--Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

    ``(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers that make membership in the labor organization, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such organization, a condition of employment either before or after hiring.''.

    (b) Applicability of Railway Labor Act to State Right to Work Laws.--Title II of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

   ``SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STATE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS.

    ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints upon, agreements between labor organizations and carriers that make membership in the labor organization, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such organization, a condition of employment either before or after hiring.''.

Presumably the bill will be identical.  Senator DeMint previously introduced a National Right to Work bill (S.504) along with seven co-sponsors.  That bill, which would prohibit requiring union membership or dues payment as a condition of employment nationwide, has been referred to the Senate HELP Committee.

More commentary: