Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
National Labor Relations Board
April 2, 2014
[*619] DECISION AND ORDER
On January 26, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Lana H. Parke issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. In addition, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions with a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief opposing the cross-exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, [**2] 1 and conclusions 2 except as modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below. 3 We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified.
The Oral Access Restrictions
As more fully detailed in the judge's decision, the Union sought to organize the bus mechanics at the Respondent's Phoenix facility in February 2010. The Union already represented the Respondent's bus drivers, fuelers, and cleaners at the [**4] facility. On February 10, the Respondent orally promulgated a rule prohibiting its mechanics from meeting with union representatives anywhere on the facility premises at any time. On February 11, the Respondent terminated a meeting in the bus drivers' break room between off-duty mechanics and three union representatives: Robert Bean and Dana Kraiza, who were employed by the Union, and Virginia Mazzone, one of the Respondent's bus drivers and an officer of the Union. The judge found that the Respondent's actions on both dates violated Section 8(a)(1).
As the Respondent argued, and as the General Counsel acknowledged, the Respondent could lawfully limit Bean's and Kraiza's access to the mechanics at its facility. Both were employed by the Union rather than by the Respondent. See generally Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 112 S. Ct. 841, 117 L. Ed. 2d 79 (1992). Mazzone, on the other hand, was both an employee of the Respondent and a union representative. Unlike Bean and Kraiza, she was lawfully on the property, consistent with her employment status and security clearance. Accordingly, the Respondent's February 10 oral rule and its February 11 conduct were unlawful because they interfered with the [**5] right of the Respondent's employees who were also union representatives to organize on the facility premises at appropriate times and in appropriate places, and the right of the Respondent's other employees to participate in this activity. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803-804, 65 S. Ct. 982, 89 L. Ed. 1372 (1945).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
360 N.L.R.B. 619 *; 2014 NLRB LEXIS 242 **; 199 L.R.R.M. 1107; 2014-15 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P15,784; 360 NLRB No. 72; 2014 WL 1321108
First Transit, Inc. and Amalgamated Transit Union Local # 1433, AFL-CIO.
Prior History: [**1]
First Transit, Inc., 2011 NLRB LEXIS 24 (N.L.R.B., Jan. 26, 2011)
employees, prohibits, nonwork, of the Act, union representative, mechanics, overly broad, restrictions, Transit, rights, notice, protected activity, construe, detrimental, argues, reputation, overbroad, bullet, distributed, promulgated, violates, company property, posting, break room, ambiguous, interfere, premises, wages, employee rights, authorization