July 24, 2014

The Obama Board and the Giant Rat: NLRB Holds That Union Use of Inflatable Monster Rat Does Not Constitute Unlawful Activity Directed At A Secondary Employer


 The "Giant Rat" -- the monster inflatable notoriously associated with labor union activity -- has survived another legal challenge. Yesterday (May 26), in Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Galencare, Inc.), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a 3-1 split decision holding that a union had not engaged in unlawful secondary activity under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by stationing the Giant Rat outside the facility of a neutral employer to protest that employer’s hiring of a non-union contractor.

In this case, a hospital had hired a sheet metal contractor for a project on which the contractor had, in turn, engaged non-union workers. In relation to its primary dispute with the contractor over the use of non-union labor, the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union sought to persuade the hospital to stop using the contractor by organizing protests near the hospital to publicize its dispute with the contractor. Those protests included the placement of the Giant Rat -- 16 feet tall and 12 feet wide -- within 200 feet of the hospital’s vehicle entrances and within 100 feet of the hospital’s front door.

The question before the NLRB was whether, under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the NLRA, the Union’s use of the Giant Rat constituted lawful persuasive activity, or unlawful intimidation, directed at a secondary employer -- the hospital (and its customers and employees) -- for the purpose of impacting the hospital’s relationship with the Union’s primary target, the non-union contractor. A majority of the NLRB -- its three Democrat members -- held that the Union had not violated the NLRA because the use of the stationary Giant Rat (i) constituted peaceful and constitutionally protectable expression, (ii) did not involve confrontational conduct that would qualify as unlawful picketing, and (iii) did not qualify as nonpicketing conduct that was otherwise unlawfully coercive.

With Galencare, the Obama Board has confirmed its intent to expand the union-friendly, narrow interpretation of the NLRA’s prohibition against coercive secondary activity which it announced last fall in Carpenters Local 1506 (Eliason & Knuth of Arizona, Inc.), 355 NLRB No. 159 (2010). Dissenting in both cases, Republican Member Brian Hayes decried the majority’s "re-definition" of Section 8(b)(4) that would allow a union to exploit the coercive and intimidating impact of the "rat collosi" in its secondary activities. Still, the Giant Rat is not free to terrorize without restraint even under Galencare, where the majority acknowledged that, in other cases, the size of the Giant Rat, combined with its location and threatening or frightening features, might render it unlawfully coercive.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Greenberg Traurig’s Labor & Employment Practice provides an array of workplace strategies and legal counsel, including practical and efficient consulting, technical assistance and litigation services. 


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 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  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.