343 N.L.R.B. 646; 2004 NLRB LEXIS 664; 176 L.R.R.M. 1044; 2004-5 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,786; 343 NLRB No. 75

 343 N.L.R.B. 646; 2004 NLRB LEXIS 664; 176 L.R.R.M. 1044; 2004-5 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,786; 343 NLRB No. 75

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER [*646]  

On February 3, 2003, Administrative Law Bruce D. Rosenstein issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief.

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings ¹, and conclusions ² and to adopt the recommended Order.

 [**2]   [**3]  

Applying the Board's standard as set out in Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the judge concluded that the Respondent maintained three work rules that were unlawful, but that three other work rules challenged by the General Counsel were lawful. ³ In Lafayette Park, the Board explained that to determine whether mere maintenance of certain work rules violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, "the appropriate inquiry is whether the rules would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights." The judge found that the Respondent's "no solicitation," "no loitering," and "no unlawful strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, or other interference" rules were unlawfully overbroad or ambiguous and that a reasonable employee could conclude that these rules proscribed Section 7 activity. We adopt the judge's conclusion that these rules violate Section 8(a)(1), for the reasons explained by the judge. ⁴

 [**4]  

In addition, the judge concluded that the Respondent's rules prohibiting "abusive and profane language," "harassment," and "verbal, mental and physical abuse" were lawful because they were intended to maintain order in the employer's workplace and did not explicitly or implicitly prohibit Section 7 activity. We agree with the judge's conclusion.

The Board has held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) when it maintains a work rule that reasonably tends to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998) In determining whether a challenged rule is unlawful, the Board must, however, give the rule a reasonable reading. It must refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation, and it must not presume improper interference with employee rights. Id. at 825, 827. Consistent with the foregoing, our inquiry into whether the maintenance of a challenged rule is unlawful begins with the issue of whether the  [**5]  rule explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7. If it does, we will find the rule unlawful. ⁵

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.