Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. , 299 N.L.R.B. 1171; 1990 NLRB LEXIS 474; 136 L.R.R.M. 1056; 1989-90 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,278; 299 NLRB No. 164

Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. , 299 N.L.R.B. 1171; 1990 NLRB LEXIS 474; 136 L.R.R.M. 1056; 1989-90 NLRB Dec. (CCH) P16,278; 299 NLRB No. 164

Opinion

 [**1] 

DECISION AND ORDER

 [*1171]  On April 29, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and a brief in reply to the General Counsel's 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 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.

1. The Respondent operates child care centers at various locations throughout the United States, including Antioch and Pittsburg, California. At all material times, the Respondent admittedly has maintained a "parent communication" rule in its employee handbook or as a corporate policy for its employees at its Antioch center and many of its other centers. ¹ The judge found that this rule violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act only to the extent that it bars employees from discussing terms  [**2]  and conditions of employment with their colleagues, who are also parents of children enrolled at the Respondent's centers. In addition, the judge found that the Respondent committed a separate violation of Section 8(a)(1) when, in February 1986, it required employees at the Antioch center to reaffirm, in writing, their adherence to this rule.

 [**3]  

The General Counsel and the Respondent each except to the judge's findings concerning the Respondent's "parent communication" rule. The General Counsel does not disagree with the violations found by the judge, but contends that the judge's overall analysis of the nature of the violation is too narrow. Specifically, the General Counsel argues that the rule, which is enforceable through discipline, is violative of Section 8(a)(1) in the following two additional ways. First, the rule interferes with the employees' Section 7 right to communicate with third parties, including parents who are not their coworkers, regarding their terms and conditions of employment.

Second, insofar as the rule requires that employees first bring their work-related complaints to the attention of the Respondent's center director or process them according to the problem solving procedure specified in the employee handbook, the rule precludes employees from bringing such complaints to the attention of other persons, organizations, or agencies, e.g., other employees, parents, and a union. We find the additional violations of Section 8(a)(1), urged by the General Counsel, for the following reasons. ²

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