Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03863/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000
Intervenor
Wal-Mart Stores
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 03-3627, 03-3863

___________

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *

*

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, *

* 

v. * 

*

National Labor Relations Board, * Appeal from the National

 * Labor Relations Board

Respondent/Cross-Petitioner, *

*

United Food and Commercial Workers *

Union, Local 1000, *

*

Intervenor on Appeal. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2004

 Filed: March 14, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner appeals the National Labor Relations Board’s order finding that it

violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.

§ 158(a)(1) and (3) (the “Act”), by punishing employee Brian Shieldnight for union

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-2-

solicitation. The Board cross-appeals and asks that we enforce the order. We affirm

in part and reverse in part the finding of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations and

enforce the Board’s order as modified.

I.

This case arises from efforts to unionize employees at the Wal-Mart store in

Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The store, like all Wal-Mart stores, maintains and enforces

a policy that prohibits solicitation during employees’ work time, regardless of the

cause or organization. According to this policy, Wal-Mart prohibits its associates

from engaging in solicitation on behalf of any cause or organization in public areas

of the store at any time during which the store is open to the public. 

Brian Shieldnight, an employee of the Tahlequah Wal-Mart, contacted the

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000 (“Union”) about possible

union representation. He obtained authorization cards from the Union to organize

employees at the Tahlequah store. 

On January 29, 2001, Shieldnight entered the store while off-duty. He wore

a t-shirt that read “Union Teamsters” on the front and “Sign a card . . . Ask me how!”

on the back. Assistant Store Manager John Lamont and Assistant Night Manager

Tammy Flute saw Shieldnight’s t-shirt and saw him speak to an associate. Flute told

the associate to return to work, and Lamont ordered Shieldnight to leave associates

alone. Lamont then consulted a Wal-Mart “union hotline.” The hotline

representative told Lamont that Shieldnight’s shirt constituted solicitation and that

Shieldnight should be removed from the store. Lamont and Flute sought out

Shieldnight. They found him in the jewelry department talking to two friends who

were not associates. Lamont informed Shieldnight that his shirt constituted a form

of solicitation and that he would have to leave the store immediately. Lamont

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-3-

escorted Shieldnight to the front door of the store and instructed him to leave the store

and Wal-Mart property.

The next incident occurred on January 30, 2001. While on duty at the store,

Shieldnight invited Department Manager Debra Starr and associates Patricia Scott

and James Parsons, all of whom were also on duty, to a union meeting. Shieldnight

asked Starr to come to the meeting and stated that he would like her to consider

signing a union authorization card. Shieldnight separately asked Scott and Parsons

to attend the meeting to hear “the other side of the story.” 

Based on these two incidents, Co-Manager Rick Hawkins and Assistant

Manger John Lamont held a written “coaching session” with Shieldnight for violating

the no-solicitation rule. A “coaching session” is part of Wal-Mart’s progressive

discipline process. Verbal coaching and written coaching are the first two steps in a

four-step process. Hawkins and Lamont explained to Shieldnight that he had violated

the solicitation policy on January 29 by soliciting on the sales floor with his t-shirt

and on January 30 by verbally soliciting employees while on-duty and on the sales

floor. Lamont told Shieldnight that it was wrong to have sent Shieldnight off WalMart property completely. Lamont clarified that while Shieldnight could not solicit

on the sales floor, he could do so in the parking lot while not on duty. Hawkins,

Lamont, and Shieldnight also discussed Shieldnight’s questions and concerns

regarding Wal-Mart employment policies, such as health insurance for associates.

Lamont suggested Shieldnight should raise the matter in “grassroots” meetings that

all Wal-Mart stores hold to identify the top three company-wide issues. The three

men arranged a time to meet in the future. That meeting never occurred.

The Union subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge against Wal-Mart

on February 2, 2001, and an amended charge on April 27, 2001. The Union claimed

Wal-Mart violated Section 8(a)(1) by denying Shieldnight access to its facility and

Section 8(a)(3) by disciplining him for his solicitation efforts. The Regional Director

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-4-

for the National Labor Relations Board for Region 17 issued a complaint on May 18,

2001. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) ruled that Shieldnight violated WalMart’s solicitation policy when he verbally solicited three employees, but did not

engage in solicitation or violate Wal-Mart’s policy when he wore the “Sign a card .

. . Ask me how!” t-shirt. The ALJ concluded that Wal-Mart violated Section 8(a)(1)

by removing Shieldnight from the store for wearing the t-shirt and Sections 8(a)(1)

and 8(a)(3) for disciplining him, in part, on the t-shirt incident. 

Wal-Mart filed exceptions to the ALJ’s findings regarding the t-shirt

solicitation. The Union and the Board filed cross-exceptions regarding the verbal

solicitation. On September 30, 2003, a divided Board panel found that Shieldnight

had not engaged in solicitation when he: 1) wore the t-shirt during his shift; 2) asked

on-duty employees to attend a union meeting; or 3) asked a co-worker to sign a union

card. The panel concluded that Wal-Mart violated the Act by asking Shieldnight to

leave the store, and by coaching him regarding both incidents. Wal-Mart appeals that

decision.

II.

The issues in this case are whether the following three incidents constitute

solicitation: 1) when Shieldnight wore a t-shirt which read “Sign a card . . . Ask me

how;” 2) when he had conversations with co-workers about attending a union

meeting; or 3) when he asked a co-worker to sign a union authorization card. The 

Board held that none of these actions constituted solicitation.

"Our standard of review affords great deference to the Board's affirmation of

the ALJ's findings." Town & Country Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 106 F.3d 816, 819 (8th

Cir. 1997). “We will enforce the Board’s order if the Board has correctly applied the

law and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

whole." Id. Substantial evidence exists when “a ‘reasonable mind might accept’ a

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-5-

particular evidentiary record as ‘adequate to support a conclusion.’” Dickinson v.

Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305

U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

A. The T-shirt

The Union contends that Shieldnight’s t-shirt did not constitute solicitation, but

rather was a “union insignia.” Wal-Mart argues that by encouraging people to

approach him, Shieldnight’s t-shirt was a form of solicitation. In NLRB v. W.W.

Grainger, Inc., 229 NLRB 161, 166 (1977), the Board held:

“Solicitation” for a union usually means asking someone to join the

union by signing his name to an authorization card in the same way that

solicitation for a charity would mean asking an employee to contribute

to a charitable organization . . . or in the commercial context asking an

employee to buy a product or exhibiting the product for him . . . .

Ordinarily, employees may to wear union insignia while on their employer’s

premises. NLRB v. Chem Fab Corp., 691 F.2d 1252, 1258 (8th Cir. 1982) (“Absent

special circumstances which justify a prohibition on wearing union insignia, an

employer violates Section 8(a)(1) if it interferes with the wearing of union insignia

by its employees during an organizational campaign.”). This protection includes the

right to wear union insignia on shirts. Id. An employer may not bar the wearing of

union insignia, such as on t-shirts, merely because it contains words such as “join,”

“vote,” or “support.” NLRB v. The Devilbiss Co., 102 NLRB 1317, 1321 (1953)

(“the words ‘join’ or ‘vote’ or ‘support’ do not destroy the essentially protected

character of the insignia and convert such insignia into the kind of solicitation which

is otherwise amenable to proper rules”). Union propaganda must involve more than

merely this type of language to convert permissible union insignia into impermissible

solicitation. 

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-6-

The Board stated that the t-shirt should be treated as union insignia because

“[i]t did not ‘speak’ directly to any specific individual . . . and it did not call for an

immediate response, as would an oral person-to-person invitation to accept or sign

an authorization card.” NLRB v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 76, 2003 WL

22273588 at *4 (2003). The Board found that there was “no claim or evidence that

Shieldnight did anything in furtherance of the T-shirt message . . . . He merely

walked around and socialized . . . about nonunion matters.” Id. Anyone, including

any Wal-Mart employee who saw Shieldnight on January 29, was free to ignore both

Shieldnight and the message on the t-shirt. In contrast, a solicitation to sign an

authorization card requires more interaction, likely a direct yes or no answer. Absent

further evidence of direct inquiry by Shieldnight, the Board’s conclusion was

supported by substantial evidence.

Wal-Mart alleges that the panel’s conclusion is not reasonable because it

ignores both Shieldnight’s purpose and the long-held rule that an employer may

implement rules against solicitation during work time to prevent interference with

work productivity. Fabri-Tek, Inc. v. NLRB, 352 F.2d 577, 585 (8th Cir. 1965)

(“[A]n employer can prohibit or regulate the wearing of union insignia where, as the

Trial Examiner himself states, there are ‘special considerations relating to employee

efficiency and plant discipline.’” The right to restrict organizational activity, such as

the wearing of union insignia

is limited to the restriction of activities which disrupt, or tend to disrupt,

production and to break down employee discipline, and does not include

restriction of passive inoffensive advertisement of organizational aims

and interests, i.e., the wearing of advertising insignia and buttons, which

in no way interferes with discipline or efficient production.

Fabri-Tek, 352 F.2d at 585.

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-7-

The employees in Fabri-Tek lost the right to wear oversized buttons and

“ordinary insignia in an extraordinary way,” because it disrupted from a complex

production process in which “concentration was a necessity.” Id. at 586 (stating that

employees “never lost their right to wear union insignia in the form of customary

buttons”). Fabri-Tek manufactured magnetic memory devices for computers and

other digital equipment. Id. at 579. This Court stated that “there is no doubt that

[Fabri-Tek’s] finished product is extraordinarily complex . . . . It is also undisputed

that each step in the fabrication . . . is done by hand and requires a high degree of

concentration.” Id. (noting also the rigorous requirements regarding the quality of

each finished product). Fabri-Tek had taken great efforts to minimize distractions in

the workplace. Id. at 580. The special circumstances, in particular the “the

importance of eliminating distractions . . . which could lead to a substantial increase

in poorly produced [items],” Id. at 583, justified the prohibition on “wearing of

unusual union insignia or usual union insignia in an unusual way.” Id. at 583, 586.

Fabri-Tek is distinguishable from the present case because the unique disruption that

justified the imposition of restrictions in Fabri-Tek are not present here. 

Fabri-Tek holds that an employer may prohibit the wearing of union insignia

that would otherwise be protected if there are special circumstances and the

restrictions are narrowly tailored to address the special circumstances. “[T]he burden

of establishing [special] circumstances rest[s] on the employer,” who must show by

substantial evidence that those circumstances exist. Am. F ed’n of Gov’t Employees,

278 NLRB 378, 385 (1986). Wal-Mart did not put forth any evidence of special

circumstances akin to those present in Fabri-Tek that would justify the prohibition of

Shieldnight’s t-shirt. Although Shieldnight’s shirt may have been more visible than

the buttons in Fabri-Tek, Wal-Mart failed to demonstrate how the t-shirt interfered

in any manner with the operation of the store. Accordingly, substantial evidence

supports the Board’s conclusion that Shieldnight’s t-shirt did not constitute

solicitation.

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-8-

B. The Co-Worker Conversations

As stated earlier, an employer may implement rules against solicitation during

work hours to prevent interference with work productivity. Republic Aviation Corp.

v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803 n.10 (1945). “[S]olicitation for a union is not the same

thing as talking about a union or a union meeting or whether a union is good or bad.”

W.W. Grainger, Inc., 229 NLRB at166. The employer may not, therefore, prevent

conversations about unions that do not interfere with work productivity. Although

not binding on this court, the Board has consistently concluded that an employee does

not engage in solicitation when he makes pro-union statements during working hours

such as “support the union,” “there is a meeting tonight,” or “the meeting is

cancelled.” Id. at 161 n.2 and 166; see also NLRB v. Yamaha Music Mfg., Inc., 301

NLRB 1097, 1101 (1991) (invitation from on-duty employee to ten co-workers to

attend union meeting was not a violation of employer’s no solicitation rule); NLRB

v. Sahara-Tahoe Corp., 216 NLRB 1039, 1042 (1975) (holding that introducing a coworker to a union representative did not constitute solicitation); NLRB Flamingo

Hilton-Laughlin, 324 NLRB 72, 110 (1997) (concluding that a conversation during

work hours in which an employee asked another employee questions about union

issues was not solicitation). 

 

In this case, Shieldnight invited three co-workers to a union meeting. These

facts are analogous to those in Yamaha or Sahara-Tahoe. Shieldnight’s statements

did not require an immediate response from the three co-workers. Instead of a

solicitation that required a response, the record shows that Shieldnight’s statements

were more akin to a statement of fact that put his co-workers on notice that there was

to be a union meeting that night and that they were welcome to attend. Nothing in the

record suggests that the environment at Wal-Mart made Shieldnight’s actions

uniquely disruptive. Accordingly, the panel’s conclusion regarding Shieldnight’s

conversations was supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the panel acted

reasonably when it concluded that “simply informing another employee of an

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-9-

upcoming meeting or asking a brief, union-related question does not occupy enough

time to be treated as a work interruption in most settings.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340

NLRB at *4. 

C. Asking Co-Worker to Sign a Card

The Board concluded that it was not solicitation when Shieldnight asked a coworker to sign a union authorization card. This conclusion is not supported by

substantial evidence. Dickinson, 527 U.S. at 162. Solicitation, as described earlier,

includes asking someone to join a union by signing an authorization card. W.W.

Grainger, 229 NLRB at 166. In this case, the record indicates that Shieldnight said

he would “like for Starr to have a [union authorization] card to sign.” Starr

understood the exchange as a request to sign the card, an understanding likely to be

reached by the average person in a similar situation. 

In light of the totality of the circumstances, Shieldnight’s actions constituted

solicitation even though he did not actually offer Starr a card at the time he asked her

to sign. Fabri-Tek, 352 F.2d at 587. Shieldnight had contacted the Union about

obtaining union representation and had obtained cards from the Union for the purpose

of organizing employees at the Talequah store. There is little doubt as to

Shieldnight’s intent in the words he spoke to Starr. The record indicates that

Shieldnight did not have a card in his hand at the time he spoke to Starr. It is silent

as to whether he had a card on his person. The fact that he did not place a card

directly in front of Starr at the time of his statement makes little difference in regard

to the nature of his conversation. Further, Shieldnight’s actions in this instance are

more analogous to a direct solicitation than when he asked his co-workers to attend

the union meeting. Asking someone to sign a union card offers that individual person

the choice to be represented by a union. Informing co-workers about a union meeting

merely puts fellow employees on notice that a meeting is going to take place. 

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-10-

Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to support the Board’s conclusion

that Shieldnight’s actions were not solicitation, and thus we reverse the Board

regarding the authorization card issue. 

III.

The Board cross appeals asking that we enforce the Board’s remedial order.

The Board ordered Wal-Mart to remove from Mr. Shieldnight’s personnel file any

reference to disciplinary action against him for the allegedly illegal solicitation. The

Board also ordered Wal-Mart to post certain prescribed notices concerning employee

union rights. The ALJ had recommended this sanction but limited the expungement

of the personnel file to those items the ALJ determined to be protected activity and

thus a violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and(3). The Board essentially adopted that

recommendation with the expansion of the expungement to include all the activities

the Board found to be protected. We enforce the Board order with the exception that

Wal-Mart is not required to delete from Mr. Shieldnight’s personnel file reference to

the coaching session that resulted from solicitation of Debra Starr to sign a union

authorization card.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority’s decision in sections 2(A) and 2(B) of its opinion that

the Board’s order must be enforced as it pertains to the t-shirt incident and to

Shieldnight’s remarks about a union meeting. 

I do not agree with the majority’s reversal of the Board’s order, in section 2(C)

of the majority opinion, as to Shieldnight’s remarks about a union card.

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
1

At oral argument, Wal-Mart’s first substantive statement was, “The critical

facts in this case are really not in dispute.” After stressing the absence of such

dispute for two minutes, counsel concluded: “What all that boils down to is that the

only issue is: Was this – were these – acts solicitation or not?”

-11-

The majority errs in requiring the Board to interpret the concept of

“solicitation” as the majority interprets and applies the concept. In reaching this

decision the majority has, I believe, erred in three ways: (1.) It has misconstrued an

issue of law as an issue of fact; (2.) it has misapprehended the role of the concept of

“solicitation” in labor law; and (3.) it has not granted that deference to the Board

which the Supreme Court has held we must grant. I discuss these points briefly in

turn, after first stating what the Board decided in this case.

The Board’s decision concerning “solicitation” in this case has two aspects:

First, a legal conclusion that Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act protect an

employee’s union-related activity in the workplace so long as the activity does not

have significant potential to disrupt the workplace. Second, the Board’s empirical

judgment that talk about union cards which does not require some immediate active

response by the listener does not, as a general matter, have significant potential for

disruption – and thus cannot be barred as “solicitation” under a lawful “nonsolicitation” policy. See In re Wal-Mart, 2003 WL 22273588, *3 (N.L.R.B.) (op.

below).

1.

We do not review here the Board’s findings as to the facts of this case, which

would be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard that the majority states.

Wal-Mart has repeatedly emphasized, in briefs and at oral argument, that it disputes

not the facts, but only the Board’s definition of “solicitation.”1

 See Appellant’s Br.,

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-12-

passim; Reply Br., passim. Indeed, the majority does not overturn any finding of fact.

Rather, the majority decides that the undisputed facts constitute solicitation. In other

words, the majority decides that the facts meet the majority’s definition of

“solicitation,” reversing the Board’s narrower definition of “solicitation” described

above. See slip op., supra, at 9-10.

In reversing the definition that the Board stated, the majority reviews the

Board’s conclusion of law that the Act protects non-disruptive activity and the

Board’s policy judgment as to the general empirical question about what sorts of

activities have significant potential to disrupt the workplace. Neither question

requires reviewing the Board’s findings of fact for substantial evidence.

2.

The majority has reviewed the Board’s definition of “solicitation” as if that

word appears in the Act – as if we are reviewing the Board’s construction of statutory

language – or as if the Board were interpreting a contract to determine the intent of

the parties. The word “solicitation” does not appear in the Act. And the Board did

not interpret Wal-Mart’s non-solicitation policy as if it were a contract.

“Solicitation” is a term of art the Board has developed through decades of its

case law, to determine what conduct companies may lawfully proscribe through “nonsolicitation” policies. See, e.g., Overnite Transp. Co., Inc., 332 NLRB 1331 (2000);

St. Luke’s Hosp., 300 NLRB 836, 837 (1990); Ralph Nenner, M.D., et al, 253 NLRB

644, 648 (1980); Farah Mfg. Co., 187 NLRB 601, 601-02 (1970); Cook Paint &

Varnish Co., 129 NLRB 427, 435 (1960); May Dep’t Stores Co., 59 NLRB 976, 981

(1944) [“Solicitation Cases”].

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
2

The Board could approach its task differently. It could decide what the

company means by “solicitation,” and then decide whether the policy is lawful and

to what extent the company can enforce it. The result of this more roundabout

approach would be the same. But the Board has not generally taken this approach.

-13-

In this case, Wal-Mart had a “non-solicitation” policy that read simply,

“Associates may not engage in solicitation . . . during working time.” J.A. at 527.

Like any policy, this non-solicitation policy is enforceable to the extent it is lawful

under the Act, and unenforceable to the extent it violates the Act. See Solicitation

Cases.

The Board decides what activities are protected by the Act, thus deciding what

can and cannot count as “solicitation” – and be forbidden – under policies such as

Wal-Mart’s. That is, the Board defines “solicitation” so as to render non-solicitation

policies lawful under the Act, as implemented by the Board.2

 See Id.

The Board does not interpret the policy as if it were a contract, to determine the

intent of the parties, and then decide whether the contract is lawful under the Act or

not. In its case law, the Board simply decides what activities are protected by the

Act, and treats those activities as non-solicitation – because companies cannot forbid

them as “solicitation.” See Id.

When the Board defines “solicitation,” therefore, it is neither construing a term

of the Act, nor is it interpreting a company’s non-solicitation policy. It is deciding

what activities are protected by the Act. It is defining a term of art, which

incorporates the Board’s construction of the Act and the Board’s policy judgments

as to general empirical matters concerning industrial life. See Id.

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
3

On this point, Wal-Mart’s counsel erred in asserting that “The Board’s

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Appellant’s Br. at 14; Reply Br. at 2.

Counsel cited a holding from a Sixth Circuit case – a holding that the Sixth Circuit

repudiated only six months later, as contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent.

Compare Evergreen Healthcare, Inc. v. NLRB, 104 F.3d 867, 873 (6th Cir. 1997)

(cited in Appellant’s Br. at 14 and in Reply Br. at 2) with NLRB v. Wencor

Packaging, Inc., 118 F.3d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1997). 

-14-

When we review the Board’s definition of this non-statutory term of art, we are

not reviewing a construction of a specific statutory term or a construction of a

contract. We are reviewing the Board’s construction of the Act as a whole and the

Board’s policy judgments as to matters within the area of its special competence.

3.

The Supreme Court has long held that we must defer to the Board’s

construction of the Act, so long as it is reasonably defensible.3

 See NLRB v. Town

& Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 89-90 (1995); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural

Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984); NLRB v. Local Union

No. 103, 434 U.S. 335, 351 (1978). The Supreme Court has also held that we must

defer to the Board’s reasonable policy judgments concerning general empirical

matters of industrial life. See NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221, 236

(1963).

The majority does not consider whether the Board’s legal conclusion that the

Act protects non-disruptive activity is reasonable. Nor does it consider whether the

Board’s policy judgment as to the general question about what sorts of activities have

significant potential to disrupt the workplace is reasonable. Rather, by overturning

the Board’s definition of the non-statutory term of art “solicitation,” the majority –

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204 
-15-

granting no deference to the Board – reverses the Board’s construction of the Act and

its empirical judgment concerning the actualities of industrial life.

On the record before us, the Board’s determinations are reasonable.

Challenging their reasonableness, Wal-Mart asserts that if we allow the Board’s

judgment to stand, then we will soon have fistfights on the sales floor, Appellant’s

Br. at 22, and union activists in sandwich boards strolling through the kitchenware

aisles of Wal-Mart stores, id. at 36. These exaggerated assertions do not overcome

the Board’s reasonable judgment on the issues raised on appeal.

I would enforce the order in its entirety.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3863 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/14/2005 Entry ID: 1878204