November 27, 2021

Volume XI, Number 331

Advertisement
Advertisement

November 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

NLRB Restricts Union Access and Activities on Employer Premises

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a decision on June 14, reversing nearly 40 years of precedent and granting employers expanded rights to prohibit union activity by non-employees from occurring at the employer’s facility.

Under prior NLRB precedent, employers were required to permit solicitation and other promotional activities by non-employee union representatives in areas open to the general public, so long as their conduct was not disruptive. Failure to allow such activities was deemed to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, that so-called “public space” exception was abolished by the NLRB’s recent decision in UPMC and its subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside368 NLRB No. 2.

In UPMC, two non-employee union organizers held meetings with off-duty employees in the hospital’s public cafeteria. When complaints were made to security, the union organizers were asked to leave, refused to do so, and ultimately were escorted out by the local police. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge, claiming that this was an unlawful violation of the public space exception. After an administrative law judge sided with the union, UPMC appealed to the NLRB. 

In a 2-1 decision, the NLRB rejected the “public space” exception and ruled in favor of UPMC. The NLRB found that because there was no evidence that UPMC knowingly allowed any other promotional or organizational activity by non-employees on its premises, and because the union organizers had other reasonable means of communicating with employees, the exclusion of the union organizers under these circumstances was not discriminatory. The NLRB also rejected the union’s argument that the hospital’s non-ejection of another non-employee cafeteria patron evinced a discriminatory motive. The NLRB reasoned that the patron was using the cafeteria for the hospital’s intended purpose—to eat lunch—while the union organizers’ activities were far afield from that.

Employers now may prohibit union solicitation from their public spaces, absent evidence of inaccessibility or activity-based discrimination. For employers with public areas, the UPMC decision is a significant victory and represents the latest in the ongoing shift toward employer-friendly standards by the Trump Board. Employers should review and update their “no-solicitation-no-distribution” policies and review whether they have previously allowed or prohibited solicitation or other promotional activities by non-employees generally.

Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLPNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 171
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Steve Suflas, Ballard Spahr Law Firm, Denver, Labor and Employment Litigation Attorney
Partner

Steven W. Suflas is Managing Partner of the Denver and Boulder offices and a nationally recognized thought leader on labor and employment issues. He represents management in all phases of labor and employment matters — from preventative counseling and strategic guidance to collective bargaining, appearances before regulatory agencies, and litigation before courts and administrative agencies. He works closely with employers — both large and small, national, regional, and local — in responding to the daily challenges of the workplace.

Mr. Suflas...

303-299-7326
Michael G. Greenfield Associate Ballard Spahr Philadelphia Litigation, Labor and Employment
Associate

Michael G. Greenfield is an associate in the firm's Litigation Department who focuses his practice on labor and employment matters. He represents employers before federal, state, and local courts and administrative agencies. Mike also counsels public and private sector employers on a wide range of labor and employment issues.

Mike's experience includes cases brought under state and federal laws, including Title VII, PHRA, FLSA, FMLA, ADA, and the ADEA. He also has experience with matters involving employment separation, employee discipline, and employee benefits.

During law...

215.864.8636
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement