Skip to main content

NLRB: Employers May Bar Union Solicitation In Their Public Spaces


UPMC - NLRB


Facts:  UPMC, a hospital system in Pennsylvania, ejected two union organizers from its 11th floor public cafeteria where the organizers were meeting with hospital employees to discuss union organizing.  A Security Operations Manager had told the union representatives that the cafeteria was only for the use of patients, their families and visitors, and employees.  However, there was nothing posted either inside or outside the cafeteria indicating who may use it.  There was evidence that UPMC had previously removed non-employees that were engaged in promotional activity.

Analysis:  Notably, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1956 in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") required employers to refrain from interfering, restraining, or coercing employee's exercise of their statutory rights.  However, the NLRA does not require an employer permit the use of its facilities for organizing when other means of communication are readily available.  Prior NLRB precedent had established that employers violate the NLRA when they restrict public cafeteria access for non-employee union organizers who engage in solicitation and other promotional activities but are not disruptive.  (However, the NLRB did recognize that this reasoning had been rejected by many courts.)

In this case, the NLRB found that an employer does not have a duty to allow the use of its facility by non-employees for promotional or organizing purposes.  The fact that the cafeteria was open to the public did not mean that an employer must allow any non-employee access to that public space for any purpose.  (The NLRB clarified that the NLRA only requires that employers refrain from interference, discrimination, restraint, or coercion in the employees' exercise of their own rights.  The NLRA does not require the employer permit the use of its facility for organization when other means are readily available.)  Since it is technically private property, the NLRB found that an employer has a right to promulgate and enforce rules and practices regulating conduct to be carried out in that public space, so long as those rules and practices are facially neutral and enforced in an even and consistent manner.

Decision:  The NLRB found that an employer may bar union solicitation in the pubic spaces of an employer's workplace so long as there is no evidence of disparate treatment.

The Takeaway:  To call this NLRB decision monumental would be an understatement.  With this decision comes the reversal of nearly 38 years of precedent that allowed non-employee union representatives to use public areas of an employer's workplace to solicit or promote their union membership, so long as the actions were not disruptive.  (Notice how the NLRB was so willing to admit that its prior precedent had been criticized by a host of courts across the country.)  As the saying goes, that prior NLRB precedent is now out the window.  With that being said, given the predominantly pro-employer tilt that the NLRB has taken as of late, I would not necessarily call this pro-employer decision a surprise.  The real thing to pay attention to here, for labor supporters, is what other long standing labor friendly precedent might be the next to fall. 

Date:  June 14, 2019

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more