## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 L O PA REX LLC , Pet i t i one r/ Cros s - Res pond e nt, v. N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , R espo nd ent/C ross-P etitio ner.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the National L ab o r Relations B o ard. No s. 18- CA-18436, 18-C A -18448, and 18- CA-18671

A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 3, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 31, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Loparex LLC o w ns and oper ate s a smal l manuf ac tu r i ngpl an t i n H am m o nd, W i sc o ns i n. W he n a ha nd fulo fthe 2 00 e m pl o y ee s wor k i nga t th e pl an t be g ant o drum up i nt er es t i n un i o ni zingthe w or kf or ce, Lopare x p ushed back by pla ci ng a num ber ofr est ri cti ons on o rg ani zi ng ac ti vi ty at the work p lace. Loparex’ s a cti ons w ere so on br ought to the a tte nti on o f2 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 the Nati onalLaborRel atio ns Boar d, w hi ch co ncl ud ed that Loparex had eng age d i n a num bero funfa i r labo r pract i ces i n vi ol ati on of the Nati onalLaborRel ati ons A ct, § 8(a)( 1), 2 9 U
. S. C

. § 1 58(a)(1) ( “th e A ct,” or “th e N L R A ”). The Board o rder ed L op arex to cea se and desi st and to tak e s eve ra l affi rm ati ve ste ps to re m edy it s p astvi ol ati ons. G u id ed by th e d efe re n tia l st an d ar d of re vie w ap p lica b le to the Board’ s deci si ons, w e concl ud e that its order s ho ul d b e e nfo r c e d.

I Lo parex o w ns m ult i ple pro du cti on f aci l i ti es scat ter ed acr oss the countr y; atthes e pl ants, i t m anufa cture s p oly c oa te d an d s i l ico n e-c oa te d p ap er s a n d film s. In J une 200 6, Lopare x acqui re d the Ham m on d pl ant fro m the Dougl as- H anso n Com pany. Though the em plo yee s i n tha t l o ca ti o n h ad at te m pte d t o f o r m a union w he n the pla nt was u nd erthe own er shi p ofDougl as- H anson, thes e eff or ts had died o ffbythe ti m e Lopar ex took o ve r. W i th Loparex a t the hel m , em plo yee s’ pro u n i on s enti m ent l ay dorma ntu nt i l e a r l y 2 0 0 7, wh e n the c o mpa nya nn o unce d se ve ra l co n tr ov er sia l em p loy m en t p olic ies . Sp u rre d in par t bythe i r di sa g r ee m en t wi ththe c o m pan y ’ s re ce nt ac tio n s, a s m all gr ou p of em p loy ee s re n ew ed th eir e ff o r t s t o un i o ni z e the pl a nt
. Th i s c a mpa i g n w as not w ar m l y r ecei ved by Loparex o ffi ci al s. I n the back

- and-f or th that f ol l owed , Lopa re x i m posed seve ra l l i m i tat i ons on uni on o rg ani zi ng atwork. A fter u n ion su p p or te rs p os te d m at er ial on co m p an y b u llet in bo ar ds i n M arch 2 00 7, Lo par ex i ss ue d a po l i cys ta te m en tN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 3 th at req uired em p loyees to obtain a p p roval before p lacing an y m aterial on th e board s. A few m ont hs l ater, seve ra l em plo yee s a tte m pted to dist ribute pr ouni on fl yer s in Loparex’ s par ki ng l ot, but they w er e s topped by com pany offi ci al s. A ro und the sam e t i m e, em plo yees p a s s e d o utu n i o n b u t t o n s i n th e p l a n ta n d l e fts o me o fthe m ne a r a t i me cl ock f o r o the r e mpl o y e e s t o p i c ku p. W hen com pany offi ci al s l ear ned ofthi s a cti vi ty, they quick l y c al l ed a m eet i ng and to l d the uni on a dvo c ates th atthe y ha d v i o l ated co m pan y po l i cy . M an ag ement al so di sc o ur ag ed empl o y ee s f r o m t al k i ngabo utthe unio n duri ng worki n g h ou rs . Then, i n J une orJ uly20 07, Lo par ex i nf o r m ed a llo fthe s hi ft l ea der s wor k i nga t th e H am m ond plan t tha t the y qu ali fi ed as sup e r visors un d er the N L R A and w ere thu s proh ibi ted from pa rti ci pati ng i n unio n act i vi ti es. Fol l o wi ngthe s e e v e nt s , T e a mst e r s Lo c a l 6 6 2 fi l e d thr ee se par at e unf ai r l abo r pr ac ti ce c ha r g es . Af te r a he ar i ng inM ay2 00 8, Adm i ni st r at i ve La w J udg e ( “ALJ “) Pa ul Bogas i ssued a deci si on i n N ove m b er 20 08 fi nd i ng tha t L op ar ex h ad vio lat ed th e A c t in se ve ra l w ay s: b y p ro m u lgat i ng i ts bul l etin boa rd p olic y b ecause o fanti unio n an i mus ; b y a nn o un c i ng un l a wful l y b r o a d c o ns t r a i nt s o n empl o y ee c o m m uni ca ti o ns r el at i ngt o uni o ni za ti o n; a nd by tr ea tings hi ft l ea der s as tho ug h the y wer e su p ervis or s u n d er th e A c t. L op ar ex filed ex c ep tio n s t o a ll but o ne o fthe A LJ’ s fin dings

. ( The A LJ a l so f ound that Pro du cti on M anage r Todd Denn i son vi ol ated se cti on 8(a) ( 1) o fthe Acti n J une 2 00 7 when he i nf o r m ed a g r o up o fe m pl o y ee s th atth ey wer e pr o hibi te d fr o m s pea k i ng about unio n or gani zi n g at w or k. S i nce Lopare x did not4 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289

c on te st th is c on c lu sio n b e f or e th e B oa rd , w e s u m m ar ily en f or ce the A LJ’ s o rdero n thi s i ssue. S ee NLRB v
. Al w in M f g. Co. , 78 F. 3d 1 1 59, 1162 (7th C ir. 1996)). Th e B oard affi rm ed the A LJ’ s fi nd i ngs o ff act an d concl usi ons of l aw f o r the mos t par t, b uti t wro te s epa r at ely o n the i ssue ofshift l eader s’ st atus as sta tutor y s up er vi sor s. Loparex no w peti ti ons thi s co urt re qu es ting that w e s et as i de th e Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n, an d th e Board cr o ss - pet i ti o ns to o bt ain a n o r dere nf o r cingi ts de ci si o n.

II O u r r e v i e w o fth e B o a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n i s d e fe r e n t i a l

. We accept i ts f actualfi nd i ngs i ftheyar e s up port ed by substan tial evid en ce, an d its l egal conc lusions “u nless th ey are i rr ati onalo r in consi ste nt with the [ A ct]
. ” R yder Truck Re n t al v . NLRB , 40 1 F

. 3d 815, 82 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05) ; se e a l so Br an de i s M achi n e ry & Su pp l y Co. v . NLRB , 412 F. 3d 822, 82 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ; 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 60 ( e)

. O ur focus i s o n the Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n; a s a pr ac ti ca l matter, w e l o o kt o the AL J ’ s o pi ni o n o n i ss ue s wher e th e Bo ar d affirm ed w i th

out add i ti onalco m m ent.

A

. Loparex’ s Bul l etin Boar d Pol i cy The Board a dopted the AL J ’ s co ncl usi on that Lopar ex viol ated section 8(a)(1) w he n , a g ainst a ba ckd rop of a co r po r at e po l i cytha t pe r m i tt ed empl o y ee s to us e th e b u llet in bo ar d s f o r a v ar iet y of n on -w or k p u rp os es , i t shut o ffacc ess in response to unio n or gani zi ng ac ti vi ty. A s s u p p or t f orhi s fi nd i ng tha t the purpose o fthe newN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 5 po l i c y wa s t o i nh ib i tthe o r g a ni z a ti on c a mpa i g n, the ALJ poi nted to a confro ntati onalm eet i ng be tw een m an ag em en t an d a uni o n s uppo r te r tha t to o kpl ac e a few months b e f o r e Lo pa r e x i s s ue d the po l i c y . Th e e v i de nc e o fan u psurge i n prouni on acti vi ty f ol l owing that m eet i n g, in th e A L J’ s v iew , sup p orted an inferen ce of Lop arex ’s k no wl edg e an d di sta st e f o r the e m pl o y ee s’ o r g an i zing eff or ts. T hi s aver si on p l aye d a ke y r ol e in the f or m ula ti on of t h e b u llet in bo ar d p olic y. L op ar e x o b jec ts th at th er e is onl y a weak tem pora l co nnecti on be tw een the ea rl i er confro ntati on a nd th e e ventuali ssuance ofthe new bul l etin boa rd pol i cy. Lopare x add s that the ev i dence d oes not establish th at th e c o m p a ny w as even aw are th atproun i o n mat er i al s ha d b ee n po st ed o n c o m pan y bul l etin boa rds. Se cti on 8 ( a)(1) o ffer s e m plo yee s br oad pro tect i on fro m em plo yer s’ at tem pts “t o i nter fer e with, re str ai n, orco er ce em plo yee s in the ex erci se” o fthei r sta tutor y r i ghts to o r g a ni z e u nd e r s e c t i o n 7
. 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 5 7
. Y e tth i s s t a t u t o r y e n t i t l e me n td o e s n o tg i v e e mp loy ee s a n u n fet te r e d r igh t t o u se a c om p an y’s bu llet in boar ds to st i r up i nter esti n unio ni zati on . S ee Fl e m i ng Compa n ie s, Inc
. v . NLRB , 349 F.3d 968 , 975 (7th C ir. 2003); Gu ar di an In du s . Co rp. v . NLRB , 49 F. 3d 317, 3 1 8 ( 7 t h Cir. 19 95 ). Th e c rit ica l qu es tio n is w h et h er th e e m p loy er is disc ri m i nati ng ag ain st unio n m ess age s, o r i fi t has a neutra l pol i cy ofper m i tting o nl y cer tai n ki nd s o fpost i ngs ( f o r e x a mp l e , th o s e r e l a t e d d i r e c t lyt o w o r kr u l e s )

. D i s c r i mi nator y inter fer ence w i th uni on o rg ani zer s’ acc ess to b u llet in bo ar d s is forb id d en . Fl e m i ng, 34 9 F .3d at97 5; J
. C. Pe n n ey Co. , In c . v . NLRB , 123 F. 3d 988, 997 ( 7th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).6 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 T h ou gh it is u n d isp u te d t h a t L op ar ex ’s n ew bu llet in b oa rd p olic y w as fac ially n eu tr al a n d n on d isc rim in at or ily appli ed, an e m p loy er m ay vi ol ate the A ct i fi ts m oti vati on f ora new pol i cy i s i ts host il i ty toward pro unio n acti vi ty. S ee N LR B v. Vill age IX, Inc. , 72 3 F
. 2d 1360 , 13 65- 66 (7th C ir. 1983) (find ing the em p loyer’ s ad op tion of a r ul e was mot i va te d b y an a nt i uni o n po si ti o n a nd thus vio lat ed th e A c t); Br an de i s M ac hi n e ry & Su pp l y Co. v . NLRB , 41 2 F
. 3 d 8 2 2 , 8 3 4

- 3 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e xp l a i ningtha t und ersecti on 8(a ) ( 1) , faci al l y no nd i scr i m i nator y “ pol i ci es m ayno t ta r g et, e i th erthr o ug h de s ign o r enf or cem ent, acti vi ty prot ecte d by the A ct”) ( em phasi s add ed); see al so N LRB v. Wol

f eEle ct r i c Co. , 314 F.3d 325 , 328 (8th C ir. 2002); F ou rB Co rp. v . NLRB , 163 F.3d 117 7, 1184 ( 1 0 t h Cir. 1998); Roa dwa y Exp
. , In c . v . NLRB , 831 F.2d 1285 , 1290 (6th Cir. 1987 ). I fan em plo yeris al l ege d to have acte d w i th an anti unio n pu rpos e, we app l y the anal yticalfra m ew or k s et f or th by th e B oa rd inWright Line, a D ivis ion of Wright Line, Inc. , 25 1 NLRB 1 0 8 3 ( 1 9 8 0 )

. S ee F e dEx F r e igh tEa s t, In c . v . NLRB , 43 1 F .3d 10 1 9 , 1 0 2 7 -28 (7t h C ir. 20 05 ); Roadway Exp. , 83 1 F.2d at 129 0. U nd er Wr ightLi ne, the Bo a r d must m ake a prim a faci e showing th at “ an ti unio n ani m us w as a s ubst an tia l or m ot iva t in g fa c to r in th e e m p loy er ’s d ec isio n .” N LRB v. Joy Re co ve ry Te ch nol ogy C o rp. , 13 4 F

. 3d 1307, 13 14 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)

. Once the Board does so , the b u rd en shi fts to the em plo yerto pro ve that i t had a l egi ti m ate busi ness re as on for m ak in g its d ec isio n . Id. S i nce Lopare x did not offe r an y e x p lan at ion for w h y it ad op te d t h e n ew bu llet in boa r d po l i c y, the c a s e hing e s o n whe the r the Bo a r d a dequatel y pr ove d i ts prim a faci e case .N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 7 I n deter m i ni ng wh etheran em plo yeract ed i m proper l y, the Boa rd i s e nti tl ed to r el y upon ci rcum sta nti alev i dence. Se e S CA Ti s s u e N orth Am e r i c a L L C v
. NLRB , 37 1 F

. 3d 983, 988- 89 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)

. I n concl ud i ng tha t Lopar ex was opposed to t h e unio ni zati on ca m pai gn, the A LJ focuse d o n a s er i es o fe vents tha t to o kpl ac e dur i ngthe m o nths leadi ngup to Lo par ex ’ s anno unc emento fthe bul l etin board pol i cy. I n J anuaryo r Febr uaryo f20 07, Schi l l i nger, a producti on o perat orat the pla nt, spoke with Ra ndy Ri sl er, who wor k ed i n h um anr es o ur ces, abo ut th e empl o y ee s’ di ss at i sf ac ti o n wi thne wl y e na ct ed at te ndance and pay pol i cies
. Id. at10 4. S chi l l i ngerwas som eone Ri sl erknew

. I n 200 6, S chi l l i ngerhad bee n fi re d by Dougl as- H anson, the previ ous o w ner ofthe pla nt, f orhi s uni on o rg ani zi ng ac ti vi ty, but he had r ecent ly b ee n rein st at ed p u rs u an t t o t h e s et tle m en t o fan u n fair l aborprac ti ces charg e. I n ear l y F ebr uary 200 7, a w eek afterS chi l l i nger ’ s co nver sat i on with Ri sl er, Tod d Bloo m and Ja son Carl son, both sup er vi sor s and for m erDougl asH anson em plo yee s, cal l ed Schi l l in geri nto an o ffi ce to disc uss what Schi l l i ngersai d to Ris l er . A fterquesti oni ng S chi l l i nger, Bl oo m cal l ed i n Ri sl erand Lis a Koats , th e human r es o ur ce s m an ag er . At s o m e po i nti n the co nv er sa ti o n, S ch i l l i ng erpo i nt ed o uttha t e ve r y o ne i n the ro om k n ew hi s hi sto ryo funi on o rg ani zi ng, and K oat s re sponded , “That’ s a l l water und erthe bri dge. ” S chi l l i nger th en as ke d w h at h e s h ou ld d o if p eo p le a s k ed h im abou t un ionization an d K oats said , “[Y]ou’re to j us t w ork an d n otta lk a b ou t t h e U n ion .” Begi nning i n ear l y F ebr uary20 07, pro unio n act i vi ty at the Ham m ond pla nt sl owly bega n to i ncre ase . S chillin ger8 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289
st ar te d t o wea r uni o n b ut to ns a nd ha ts t o wor k, a nd he do nn e d a u ni o n t
- s hi r tf o r a b o ut ha l f o fh i s wo r k da y s . On M ar ch 9, 20 07, a gr oup ofem plo yee s pos ted a prouni on fl yero n one ofLopare x’s m any c om p an y b ull etin boa rds. Th e fl y e r wa s t a k e n do wn s ho r t l y a ft e r i twa s p o s t e d; th er ea fte r, i t was r epe at edl yr epo st ed an d t ak endo wn. The re cor d does no t r eve alwh en the se postings and r eposti ngs too k pla ce, or how m any ti m es the flye r w as re pla ced, and so we cannot tel l wh etherthe fl yerwas displ aye d on the com pany bul l etin boa rd afterM ar ch 9. These e vents support the Boa rd’ s co ncl u si on that L op ar ex w as m ot iva te d by an tiu n ion an im u s w h en it enacte d i ts b u l l etin boa rd pol i cy. S chi l l i nger ’ s di scussi on ofuni ons w i th Lopare x’s m anage m en t and his pro unio n appa r elputthe c om pan y o n n o ti ce tha t uni o n o r g an i zing eff or ts at th e p lant had (r e) com m enced. Lopare x poi nts o u t th a t th e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g th att he com pany knew that u n ion a cti vi sts had pla ced a fl yero n one ofthe m any bul l etin boar ds i n the pla nt. N onethel ess , the Board w as aw ar e that thi s w as a rel ati vel y sm al l pl ant. I n a ddi ti o n, i t was e nt i tl ed t o re l y on th e su spi ci o us t i m i ng ofthe pol i cy announcem ent, i m m edi ate l y after a three

- o r f our- m onth per i od i n w hi ch Loparex w i tness ed an u p tic k in em p loy ee s’ o rg an izin g e ffor ts
. C f. Brand eis M ac hi n e ry & Su pp l y Co. v . NLRB , 4 12 F.3d 822, 83 5 (7th C ir. 20 05 ); Gr e atL ake s Ware ho u s eCo rp. v . NLRB , 23 9 F
. 3d 886, 89 0 (7th C ir. 20 01 ); N LR B v. Ra in-W are, Inc. , 73 2 F
. 2d 1349 , 1354 ( 7th Cir. 1984). The i nfe re nce o fan a n tiu n ion purpose i s r ei nfo rce d by th e host il ity Lop arex ’s m an agem en t d is p la yed tow ardN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 9 S c hi l l i ng e r a tthe F e b ru a r y 2 0 0 7me e t i ng . T he Bo a r d, affi rm i ng the A LJ, r eas onabl y v i ew ed the ci rcum sta nces l eadi ng to the m eeti ng as suspect
. Pre sum abl y, Ri sl er ha d alread y tipp ed off m an agem en t abou t Sc hill inger’s op p os itio n to th e ne w p olic ies an d th u s th er e w a s little re aso n to interr oga te Schi l l i ngerabo ut hi s co nver sat i on wi thRi sl er . The mana g emento ffi ci al s who ca l l ed th e m eet i ng had w or ked a t Do ug l a s - Ha nson when S ch i l l i ng erwas fi r ed f o r hi s uni o n a ct i vi ty
. By war ni ng S ch i l l i ng era t th e en d ofthe meet i ngno t to s pea kabo ut th e u n ion , K o a t s c am e d an ge ro u sly clo se to illega lly prohibi ti ng an em plo yee fro m engagin g i n prouni on sol i ci tat i on duri ng the workday. S ee N LRB v. Al um i num Cast i ng & Engineering Co. , 230 F.3d 286 , 293-94 (7th C ir. 2000 ) ( hol ding an o verbro ad no- sol i ci tat i on r ule m ay i m proper l y s en d the m ess age thatem plo yee s ca nnot disc uss uni ons du ring br eakti m es)

. W e s ee no r eas on to s e c o n d

- g u e s s th e B o a r d ’ s c o n c l u s i o n tha t th e m ee tingr ev ea l ed m an ag ement ’ s di st as te f o r a uni o n.

B. Dist ributi on o fU ni on Li ter atur e in the Park i ng Lot I n M ay orea rl y J une 200 7, Sc hi l l i nger, Chri s M eek er and tw o o the r e mpl o y e e s h a nd e d o utl i t e r a t ur e t o c ow or ker s in the com pany park i ng l ot an d p laced uni on l i ter atur e o n carwindshie l ds. S hor tl y after they g ot sta rt ed, thr ee Loparex offi ci al s ca m e o ut to the parking l ot an d i nf o r m ed th em th atthe y wer e vi o l at i ngc o m pan y pol i cy. The Boar d en dorse d the AL J ’ s co ncl usi on that Lo par ex ’ s r es tr i cti o n o n un i o n o r g an i zingi n the com pany pa rk in g l ot const i tuted an unf ai r l aborprac ti ce un d er section 8(a)(1).10 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 I n prot ecting em plo yee s’ r i ght t o or gani ze, se cti on 8 ( a) ( 1) ofthe A ct r eco gni zes thatem plo yee s’ o rg ani zi ng ac ti vi ti es m ay substa nti al l y inter fer e with em plo yer s’ pro perty ri ghts. S ee S t
. M arga r e tM e r cy Hea l th c areCe n t e rs v . NLRB , 519 F.3 d 3 73, 374 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. Thus, wh i l e the A ct g r ants empl o y ee s th e r i g htt o s o l i ci t o n b eh al fo fa uni o ni z a t i o n c a mp a i g n, th e s t a t u t e a l s o r e c o g n i z e s th e e mp loy er ’s in te re st in m ain ta in in g p ro d u c tiv it y a n d d isc ipline. S ee N LRB v. Babc oc k & Wi l co x Co. , 351 U
. S. 113 (1956 ). A n em plo yer, f orexam p le, is enti tl ed to l i m i t o r ban sol i ci tat i on i n the w or kpl ace du ring work ti m e. S ee N LRB v. C l i nt on Ele ct r oni cs Corp. , 284 F. 3d 731, 739 (7th C ir. 2002 ) ( ci ti ng Repu b l i c Avi at i on v . NLRB , 324 U

. S. 793 (1945)). A n em plo yer m ay not, how eve r, prohibi t al l so l i ci tatio n in a co m p an y p ar kin g l ot
. L op ar ex c on te n d s t h atth is is n o t w h at it w as d oin g; in st ea d , i t a rg u es , i t o n ly banned the pr acti ce o fpl aci ng fl yer s o n carwindshie l ds. T h e B o a r d s a w ma t t e r s d i ffe r e n t l y ; i t a g r e e d wi th t he AL J ’ s fi ndi ngtha t th e Lo par ex offi ci al s wer e te l l i ngthe em plo yee s that they c oul d not di str ibute a ny uni on m ate ri al s i n the parking l ot eve n i f they w er e off

- du ty. B ec au se th e re c or d p ro vid es so m e s u p p or t fo r b o t h p os itio n s, th is w as a cla ss ic ca ll for t h e B o a r d

. Cf

. N LRB v. Alu m i num Cast i ng & Engi ne e r i ng Co. , 23 0 F .3d 28 6, 29 3- 94 (7t h C ir. 20 00 ); Be ve r l y Cal i f or n i a Corp. v . NLRB , 22 7 F
. 3d 817, 839-40 (7th C ir. 2000). W e ad d th at ev en if L op ar ex h ad p ro sc rib ed on ly d ist ributi on o n carwin d sh iel ds, the Board s ti l l co uld have fou n d th at its p o l i c y vio lat ed se c tio n 8(a )(1)

. N LRB v. Village IX, Inc. , 723 F.2d 13 60 , 136 5- 66 (7t h C ir. 19 83 ). InN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 11 Village IX, we concl ud ed that an e m plo yerenga ged i n an unfai r l aborprac ti ce when i t ba rr ed sev er alem p loy ees from placing l eaflets un d er the w ind sh iel d w ipers of cars p ar ke d in t h e c om p an y lot

. Id

. W e ex pl aine d that “the di st r ibut i o n [ o fl ea fl et s] c o ul d no t ha ve di sr upt ed th e com pany’s w or k” and “w oul d not hav e inter fer ed w i th the o w ners ’ pro pertyr i ght e xcept i n th e m ostte chnic al ofse nses. ” Id. a t 3 66. Lopare x’s al l ege d concer n that dist ribut i on o n car s would l ead to “whole sal e l i tte ring” l a c k s me r i t
. T h i s c o n c e r n w a s n e v e r me n t i o n e d b y c o mpany o fficials and ther e i s no ev i dence i nd i cating tha t l i t t e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n a p r o b l e m.

C. Dist ributi on o fU ni on Buttons i n the Lu nch Room I n J une 20 07, M ee k erl eft a pi l e o fpr o uni o n b ut to ns l y i ng on a tabl e next to a ti m e cl ock

. O n J une 20, Todd D enni son an d Li sa K o at s, b o thmem be r s o fLo par ex ’ s m an ag ement te am, he l d a meet i ngwi thM eeker, S ch i l l i ng er, a nd anothe r em ployee abo ut thei r dist ributi on o fthe butto ns. Den ni so n warne d, “ Ido n’ t wantto c at chy o u pa ss i ng [ butto ns ] o ut, Ok ay, Ido n’ t wantt o s ee the m l ay i ng ar ound.

. . . You can pass them o ut wh en yo u ’re outs i de, on your o wn ti m e, b utwheny o u’ r e he r e wor k i ng, y o u, y o u, ne ed to b e wor k i ng . ” The ALJ c o nc l ude d, a nd the Board ag re ed, thatthe prohibi ti on was ov erbro ad bec a us e em p loyees cou ld h ave be li eved they w ere barred from soli citing ne a r t he tim e clock, a non -w ork ar ea, duri ng non- w or ki ng hour s. Loparex co m es cl ose to co ncedingthatsuch a n expansi ve ru le aga in st so licit at ion on c om p an y pr op er ty w o u ld12 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 vi o l at e se ct i o n 8 ( a) ( 1)

. Ourr ev i ew s at i sfies us th atthe Board’ s pos i ti on fi nd s s upp or t in the e vi dence. S ee A lum inum Cast i ng, 230 F.3d at2 93 -94 . L op ar ex d efe n d s it se lf in thi s instance bytr yi ng to char acteri ze Denn i son’ s s tat em ent as an anti

- cl utter or der. Com pany offi ci al s, it s ays, ar e p e r mi t t e d t o f o rb i d e mpl o y e e s fr o m l e a v i ngunattended pil es ofbutto ns o n com p an y pr oper ty. Once ag ain , th e q u e s tio n is w h et h er an ot h er w ise rea so n ab le pol i cy oper ate s in pract i ce in a way that di scr i m i nates a g a i ns t un i o n o r g a ni z e r s . S ee Fle m i ng Com pani e s , Inc . v. NLRB , 3 4 9 F
. 3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )

. Lo pa r e x c o nt e nd s th ati ts pr o hibi ti o n was no ndi sc r i m i na to r i l y a p pl i ed, a nd it a ss er ts th at co m p a n y off icia ls w er e a c tin g w ith in thei r ri ghts i n banni ng the use ofcom pany pro pertyto dist ribute uni on butt ons. L op ar ex ’s a rg u m en t o n th is p oin t is te rs e a n d larg ely u ns up p orted by pe rtinen t au th ority, and so w e w ere concerned that i t m i ght b e for fei ted. S ee Whi t eEagl eCo- op A ss’n v . Co nn er, 553 F. 3d 467, 476 n.6 (7th Cir. 20 09). L op ar ex d oe s , h o w e v er , refe r u s t o a ca se th at d ire c tly add re sse s the com pany- proper ty i ssue. S ee Guar d Pub l i s hi ng, 351 N L R B 70 (20 06 ), enf’d in pa rt, 571 F.3d 53 (D

. C

. Cir. 2009 )

. The Boar d ar gues that Loparex ca nnot invoke G ua rd Pu blish i ngb ec au se i t f ai l ed to r ai se the c as e be f o r e th e Board p ro p er l y. S ee Prod uc t i on Worke rs U ni on of Chi cago v. NLRB , 1 61 F
. 3d 10 47, 1 05 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( ex pl aini ng that appell ate co urt c an not re vi ew an a rgum ent fi rs t raised on ap p eal u nless “ex traord inary circum stan ces” are prese nt)

. Lopare x d i d, how eve r, pre sent i ts com panypr o pe r t y a r g ume nti n i t s o pe ningb r i e fb e f or e t he Bo a r d. Thi s i s en o ug h t o pr es er ve the po i nti n the se e nf o r ce m en tN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 13 p roceed ings an d to al low Lop a r e x t o rely on th is theory ev en th ou gh th e p ar tic u lar ca se w as firstm en t i o n e d in its reply bri ef. N everth eless, th is i s of no h e lp to L op arex . Th e B oard affir m ed th e A L J’s fin d in g t h at th e n o-d i s tr ibu tio n ru le w as ove rl y b ro ad, bec ause Denn i son and K oat s d id not sta te that they w er e di sal l owing dist ributi on o nl y i n w or k a re as ofthe f ac i l i ty. By purpor ti ng to r est ri ct di str ibuti on i n non- w or k a re as, duri ng br eakti m es, they st ep p ed ov er t h e lin e. In s o fin d in g, th e B oa rd w as follow in g lon g-e st ab lish ed p olic y t o t h e e ffec t t h at “a ru le is pr es um pti ve l y i nv al i d i fi t pro hibi ts di st r ibut i o n o n the em ploye es ’ ow n ti m e. ” S ee O ur Wa y, Inc ., 26 8 N LR B 394, 3 9 4 ( 1 9 8 3 )

. T h e A L J a l s o n o t e d th a tatth e s a me t i me L op ar ex w as co m p lain in g a b o u t t h e u n ion m at er ials , i t p e r mi t t e d th e d i s t r ib u t i o n in th e l u n c h r o o m o fs o me coupons f ora l oca l f ast
- f oo d res taur ant, sugg est in g that i ts re alco ncer n w as nei thercl utternorl i m i tat i on t o j obre l ate d m ate ri al s.

D. Shi ft Leader s a s S upervi sor s under the Act I n Jun e or J uly 2007, L op arex ann ou nc ed to the sh ift lead e rs w orking at th e H am m ond plan t tha t the y w ere “s upe r vi so r s” wi th i n th e m ea ni ngo fthe Acta nd thus prohibi ted fro m enga gi ng i n unio n acti vi ti es. S ee NLRB v. Kent ucky R iverCo m m unity Care, Inc. , 5 3 2 U. S

. 7 0 6 , 70 8 ( 2001 )

. S ecti on 2 ( 11) o fthe A ct s tat es: T he t er m ‘ su per vi so r ’ mean s an y i ndi vi dualha ving auth or i ty, i n the i nter esto fthe em plo yer, to hi re ,14 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289
tr ansfer, suspend, l ay off, r ecall, pro m ote , di schar ge, ass i gn, r ew ar d, ordi sci pline o therem p loy ees , o r re sponsibl y t o dir ect them , o r to adj ust thei r gr i evan c es , or effe c tiv ely to re c om m en d su c h ac tio n, ifin connect i on wit h t he f or ego i ng the exer ci se ofsuch author i ty i s no t o fa m er el y r outi ne o r cl er i calnatur e, but r equi re s the use ofi nd ependent j ud gm ent. 2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 5 2 ( 1 1 )

. To pr o v e tha t e mpl o y e e s qual i fy a s sta tutor y s up er vis or s, an e m plo yerhas the b urden to prove : “( 1) [ th e em plo yee s] hol d the autho ri ty to engag e in an y 1 of th e 1 2 list ed su p er vis or y fu n c tio n s, (2) t h eir

‘ exer ci se ofsuch a uthor i ty i s n ot o f a m er el y r outi ne o r cl er i calnatur e, but re quires t he use ofi nd ependent j ud gm en t, ’ a nd ( 3) the i r a utho r i tyi s he l d ‘ i n the i nt er es t o fthe em plo yer . ’ ” Kentu cky R iver, 53 2 U.S

. at71 3 ( c i tat i on om i tte d). Lopare x ar gues that shi ft l eader s qual i fy a s su p er vis or s b ec au se th ey h av e th e au th or ity to res p on sib ly dir ect em plo yee s a nd as si gn the m work. B ef o r e w e a d d re ss ea c h of th es e c on te n tio n s, it is he lpful to provid e a gene ral d escrip tion of th e rol e s hift lea d er s p lay att h e H am m on d p lan t. E ac h sh ift lea d er is part ofa sm al l cr ew ty pica lly c om p ris ed offi ve orso w or ker s. S hi ft l eader s workdi re ctlyunder a tea m m an ag er, who i s g en er al l y a ss i g ne d t o the s ame 1 2- ho ur shi ft. W hi l e shi ft l eader s, l i ke othe r cre w m em ber s, o perat e th e p ro du cti on m achi nery, theyal so hel p out o thercr ew m em ber s, answer ques ti ons, and prov i de needed supp l i es. I n additi on, shi ft l eader s a re r equi re d to ass i gn cr ew m embe r s to v ar i o us machine s i n o r dert o a cc o m pl i shthe tas ks al l oca ted to the cre w i n the dail y j ob pri or i ty sheet

.N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 15 1. A uthor i ty re sponsibl y t o dir ect T o es ta b lish t h at a n e m p loy ee h as th e a u th or ity res p on sibl y t o dir ect anothe r co- w or ker, the em plo yee m ust be acco untabl e fo r the co- w or ker ’ s p er f or m ance. S ee N LRB v. A dam & Ev e C osm et ics, Inc. , 567 F. 3d 723, 728 ( 7t h C ir. 1977 )

. I n additi on t o acco untabi l i ty, the Board r equi re s that an em plo yee m ust hav e “ author i ty to take co rr ecti ve a c t i o n, i fn e c e s s a r y ” a nd b e s ubj e c tt o n e g a t i v e c onse q u en c es for h er fai l u r e t o t ak e s u c h ac tio n . O akwood Healthcare, Inc. , 348 N L R B 6 86, 692 ( 2006 ). Th e B oard ad op ted the A L J’ s con clusion that Lop arex ’s shift l ea der s wer e no t empower ed to t ak e co r r ec ti ve a ct i o n. Loparex a rgues that O akwood Heal t hc are w as w ro n gly d ecided be ca us e th e Bo ar d i na ppr o pr i at ely r ea d i nt o the statu te an a dd i ti onalr equi re m ent that the em plo yee m us t ha ve the c apacity to ta k e co r r ec ti ve a ct i o ns . The Bo ar d a ss er ts tha t Lo par ex has f o r fei te d a ny a r g um en t d ire c tly ch alle n gin g t h e c as e. Se e 2 9 U .S.C

. § 16 0(e ). W h ile L op ar ex arg u ed to th e B oa rd th at its sh ift lea d er s d id di r e c tthe i r c o - wo r k e r s , i tn e i the r a tta ck e d O akwood Heal thc a ren or rais ed t h e i ss u e o f co rre c tiv e a c tio n . Th is m aywel l a m o untt o a f o r fei tu r e o fLopa r ex ’ s ar g um en t on a pp eal

. S ee M as i ong a le Ele ct r i ca l

-M e ch ani ca l, Inc . v. NLRB , 323 F.3d 54 6, 55 5 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). Y et ev en if Lopa re x di d prese rv e the i ssue, we are unpersuaded by i ts ar gum ent. T h e B oa rd ’s p os itio n, in L op ar ex ’s op in ion , i s n on se n sical, bec ause the abi l i ty to disc i pline i s a s ta tu tor i l y r eco gni zed sup er vi sor y power. A ssum i ng tha t “ cor re cti ve acti on” i s no t di ffer ent fro m di sci plinaryact i on, Lopare x16 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289

ar gues that the O a k w o o d H eal thc a rer ule effecti vel y e l im inates “r esponsibl e di re cti on” as a s epara te basis f or est abl i shi ng an em plo yee ’ s s up er vi sor y s tatus. Lopare x co nt en ds th atthe Bo ar d a ppl i ed th e “ co r r ec ti ve a ct i o n” re q u ire m en t in a m an n er th at c on flat ed th e ide a o fd isc ipl i ne a nd r es po ns ibl e di r ec ti o n. T h e m os t w e ca n sa y is t h at th e re fer en c e t o re sp on sib le dir ecti on i n sec ti on 2 ( 11) o fthe A ct m ay be a m biguous. W e thus owe Che vron defe re nce t o the Boa rd’ s decision i n O a k w o o d H eal thc a re . S ee Che vron U
. S. A. , In c. v. Nat i onal R es ource s D ef

ens e C ounsel, Inc. , 4 67U .S. 83 7 (1 98 4); N LRB v. Gr an Care, Inc. , 170 F.3d 662 , 666 (7th C ir. 1999) ( e n b anc ) ( acco rdi ng Che vron defer ence to Board’ s inter preta ti on o f th e “ ind ep en d en t jud gm en t” requ irem en t in se ction 2(11)). Though Loparex co ntends that O akwood Heal t hc a re ’s c o nc e pt o f “ c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n” i s fun da men t a l l y f l a we d, we fi nd i t a per m i ss ibl e i nt er pr et atio n o fthe pe r tine nt sta tu to r y l an g ua g e. The Bo ar d i s en ti tl ed to t ak e th e po si ti o n tha t i t woul d be in co ng r uo us t o ho l d s o m eo ne acco untabl e for the conduct of othe rs she coul d not co ntro l or cor re ct. Se e N LR B v. D on’s O lney Food s, Inc. , 87 0 F
. 2d 1279 , 128 4 (7th C i r. 19 89) ( hol ding that re sponsibl e di re ction im p li es th e nee d f or accou nt abili ty). At the s ame t i m e, i n a ppl y i ngthe “ co r r ec ti ve a ct i o n” requir em ent, the Board m ust be car eful to dist i ngui sh between co rr ecti ve an d disci plinaryact i on i n or der t o ensure thatea ch parto fse cti on 2 (11 ) has m eani ng. Yet, d es p ite L op ar ex ’s cla im s to th e con tr ar y, th er e is lit tle ind ication t h a t it eq ua ted thes e tw o for m s of su p ervisory pow er . I nstea d, the Board ac cepted the A LJ’ s fi nd i ng tha tN os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 17 shi ft l eader s l acke d author i ty to tak e co rr ecti ve acti on bec au se th ey w ere un able to con trol th eir crew m em bers i n a nyme a ning fuls e ns e . T he ALJp o i nt e d o ut, f or ex am p le, th at if a m em b er of a s h ift le a d e r ’ s c re w is i nsubor dinat e, the shi ft l eader ’ s o nl y o pti on i s t o subm i t a f actualr epor t deta i l in g the i ssue to her tea m m anage r f or co nsi derat i on. The A LJ found that thi s m eag err eport i ng power coul d no t be const rued as a f or m o fco rr ecti ve a ct i o n. Si nce L op ar ex di d not pro vi de any othe r evi dence i nd i cating tha t s hi ft l eader s had autho ri ty to contr olcr ew m em bers, the B oard did not n eed to illu s t rate th e d if

fe r e nc e b e t we e n c o r r e c t i v e a nd di s c i pl i na r y a c t i o n. We a dd th atw e ha ve no t r o ubl e i m ag i ni ngs epa r at e do m ains f or these tw o ki nd s of acti on. For i nstance, an em plo yee m i ght be sai d t o tak e cor re cti ve acti on i fshe re quir es a co w or ker to sta y l ate to com ple te a proj ect that h as fall en b e h i n d s c h e d u l e . P l a c i n gth i s s ma l l b u r d e n o n th e e mp lo yee, how ever, w ou ld n ot am ou nt to a disciplinary acti on that c oul d affect the e m plo yee ’ s j ob sta tus. W e are sa ti sfi ed that substa nti alev i dence supports the Boa rd’ s dete rm i nati on tha t sh i ft l eader s do not p ossess the ab il it y t o take corrective ac tion. T his cou rt o wes de fer en ce to the Bo ar d wheni t i s en g ag ed i n the diffi cul t t asko fd i stingui shi ng betw een “ tr ue superv i sor s” and ot h er em plo yee s under sect i on 2 ( 11)

. S ee G ran C a re, 17 0 F
. 3d at6 66

. Thi s ty p e o f li ne - dr awi ngi s whatthe Board i s f or, afteral l

. A nd the evi dence i n thi s ca se provi ded am ple support f orthe Board’ s co ncl usi on that shi ft l eader s l ack the a uthor i ty re sponsibl y t o dir ect thei r cre w m em ber s.18 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 2. A uthor i ty to ass i gn W hi l e the B o ar d a ss um ed th ats hi ft l ea der s ha d the au th o r i ty to a ssi g n wo r kt o c r ew mem be r s, i t al so c o ncl ude d tha t sh i ft l ea der s di d n ot ex er ci se i nde pen den t j ud gm ent whil e a ssi gni ng the work. S ee Kentu cky R iver, 532 U
. S. at71 3 ( dist in gu i shi ng “ind ependent j ud gm ent” f r o m th e ex er ci se o f au th o r i ty th at i s “m erely r o ut i ne orcl er i cal[ i n] n at u re”)

. I n apply i ng the co ncept o fi nd epend ent j ud gm ent, the Board f ocuse d o n th e m anner i n w hi ch shi ft l eader s a ssi gn work to thei r cre w m em ber s. The s h ift l eader s r eferto the dail y pr i or i ty sheet, wh i ch “l i sts the j ob s to be r un on ea ch m achi ne i n or der o f i mpo r t a n c e a n d wh en tho s e j o b s a r e d u e . ” O n l y t wo shi ft l eader s t est i fi ed abo u t th ei r speci fi c appro ach to as sig n m en ts . M ee ke r re p or t e d t h at h e u se d th re e b as ic st r at eg i es : ( 1) makings ur e peo pl e rotat ed to di ffer en t m achi nes; ( 2) al l owing a per son to co n ti nue w or ki ng o n th e sa m e m ac hi ne i f a p roj ect t o o kmor e th ana da y ; a nd ( 3) r andom as si gnm ent. M eek erd id notta ke i nto acc ou nt th e p erson al ch aract eristi cs of his c o-w orkers when as si g ni ngwor k

. T im M o ni ck enha d a di ffer en t sy st em: he a ss i g ne d hi g he r pr i o r i tywor kt o mor e effi ci en t w or kers. The Boar d gave no w ei ght t o M oni cken’ s t est im ony, however, bec au se h e w as no l onge r a s hi ft l eader at the t i me o fthe h e a r i nga nd h e n e v e r p r o fe s s e d t o sp eak abou t how other sh ift leade rs assigned w ork. Le ft w i th a m eag err ec or d show i ng o nl y M eek er ’ s a pp ro ach to ass i gni ng work, the Board deci ded thatt h i s was nota posit ion that r equi re d the e xerci se ofi nd ependent j ud gm ent.N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289 19 Loparex c on tends thatthe Board s houl d not hav e i gnor ed M oni cken’ s t est i m ony. Yet Loparex i s un abl e t o p oint to any eviden ce th at an y othe r s h if t leade rs adop te d M oni cken’ s pra cti ce o fas si gni ng work base d up o n wo r ker s’ r e l a t i v e p r o du c t i v i t y . I n f a c t, the ALJ speci fi cal l y found that M oni cken’ s j ob as shi ft l eader differ ed i n m any r es p ec ts fro m o thershi ft l eader s. S i nce Lo par ex h ad the b ur dent o de m o ns tr at e i nde pen den t j ud gm en t, w e c on c lu d e that s ubstanti alev i dence s up p o r t s th e B o a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n t o f o c u s o n Me e k e r ’ s a pproa ch to work ass i gnm ents. Retr eat i ng to M eek er ’ s test i m ony, L opar ex contends that i t i s i r r el ev an t th atM ee k erf ai l ed to e xe r ci se i nde pen den t j ud gm e nt
. As l o nga s Mee k e r wa s e mpo we r e d t o make i nd ependent j ud gm ents about w or k assi gnm ents, Lopare x ass er ts that he qual i fi es as a s up er vis or under s ecti on 2(1 1). Cf

. Dreye r ’s Gran d Ic eCre am , Inc. v . NLRB , 14 0 F.3 d 68 4 , 687(7t h C ir. 19 98 ) (co llec tin g c as es th at h old that the actualexerci se ofsuperv i sor y power i s no t nec essary to qu ali fy as a sup ervisor un d e r se ction 2(11)). W h ile it is p os si b l e th at a st at u to ry su p er vis or n ee d on ly ha ve th e au th ority to ex ercis e o n e of th e sup ervisory pow er s e num er ate d i n sec tion 2 ( 11) , thi s doe s no t s uffi ce f orthe exer ci se ofi nd ep endent j ud gm ent. S ee N LRB v. D on ’s O lney Food s, Inc. , 870 F.2d 127 9, 1283 -84 (7th C ir. 19 89 )

. I n D on’s O l ney F oods , ev en t hough an e m plo yee h a d th e ab i l i t y t o a s s i g n wo r k er s t o d i ffe r e n tt a s k s , we f o und thi s auth or i tyi ns uffi ci en t be ca us e m o sto fthe as sig n m en ts w e r e d ict at ed by info rm al ro u tin e. Id. Sim il ar l y, M ee k er ’ s m etho d o fa ssi g nm en t was r o ut i ne a nd cl er i cali n nature ; ther ef or e, the Board a c te d w i thi n i ts20 N os. 09

- 2187, 09

- 2289

au th ority w he n it conc lud ed that Lo p arex ’s shift lead ers d id no t ex er ci se the r equi si te i nde pen den t j udg m en t to quali fy a s s up er vi sor s under the Act. * * * W e co nc l ud e that the Boar d’s or der s houl d be E NF OR CE D i n i ts enti re ty.

12- 31- 09