Advertisement

April 18, 2014

NLRB Rules Inflatable Rats May No Longer Constitute Signal Pickets

The Obama National Labor Relations Board continues its movement left by reversing years of cases with regard to the use of giant inflatable rats in picketing situations. For years since unions popularized the use of rats as an emblem of non-union "scab" employers, unions have actively used this symbol in leaflets, in costumes on picket lines, and most popularly, in the form of giant 16-foot tall inflatable balloons meant to advise the public of the presence of a labor dispute. Employers and their attorneys, including those from this law firm, have argued successfully that these inflatable rats constitute "signal" pickets which are subject to the same secondary boycott rules as live pickets. The advantage of such a position is that the inflatable rats therefore have to conform to secondary boycott rules, including a requirement that they be placed in front of or near gates reserved for the picketed company, as well as a requirement that they can only appear when the picketed company is present at the jobsite. All this was recently changed by the Board in the Sheet Metal Workers Local 15, 356 NLRB No. 162 (2011).

In the Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 case, the Board dismissed an unfair labor practice complaint against a union which had stationed an inflatable rat in front of a hospital rather than at a reserved gate in order to discourage the hospital from doing business with non-union contractors. The recent Obama appointees to the Board joined NLRB Chair Liebman in ruling that the inflatable rat did not constitute a signal picket, but instead, constituted symbolic speech which is not subject to secondary boycott rules. NLRB member Brian Hayes dissented from the ruling and stated that the inflatable rat was "unmistakably confrontational and coercive" and was designed to "intimidate by conduct, not to persuade by communication." The Board made the ruling despite an admission by the union organizer that the union was "picketing."

The Board determined that the inflatable rat, like the bannering recently found lawful in the 2010 decision of Eliason & Kanuth of Arizona, Inc., did not involve confrontation, was stationery, did not block entrances, and did not result in threats to the public going into the hospital.

The Board's holding allows the union not only to place the inflatable rats at neutral entrances, but also to place them at locations where the picketed company is absent. Like bannering cases, employers who find themselves the subject of this type of campaign should carefully monitor union actions accompanying the inflatable rat, such as blocking, the use of confrontational activities, as well as traditional patrolling. If and when those activities occur, the use of the rat will not be proscribed, but it may be treated as a signal "picket" and therefore need to conform to the secondary boycott restrictions under federal labor law.

© 2002-2013 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Member

Judd Lees has been practicing labor and employment law since 1979 and is a Member in the Seattle office. He is the chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group. Mr. Lees represents both unionized and nonunionized employers in the private and public sector, including clients in the construction, manufacturing and the transportation industries before federal and state agencies, including the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

206-233-2893

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.