Opinion ID: 1200126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Content and Context of the Section 7 Rights Asserted.

Text: Not all literature that members of a labor organization might seek to distribute invokes self-organization, mutual aid or other section 7 considerations. See Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 563, 98 S.Ct. 2505, 57 L.Ed.2d 428 (1978) (The first [question] is whether, apart from the location of the activity, distribution of the newsletter is the kind of concerted activity that is protected from employer interference by §§ 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.). It is clear, however, that the `right of self-organization depends in some measure on [the employee's] ability . . . to learn the advantages of self-organization from others.' Lechmere, 502 U.S. at 532, 112 S.Ct. 841 ( quoting Babcock, 351 U.S. at 113, 76 S.Ct. 679) (second alteration in original). The brochures and hand-outs at issue in the instant case highlighted the benefits of membership in the Carpenters' Union. Accordingly, we conclude that the content of these materials could conceivably trigger section 7 protections. In addition, some of the literature was aimed at informing the public of Dick's prior use of a subcontractor who did not pay area standard wages. We assume that literature criticizing the payment of wages below the area standard by an employer may also be protected under section 7. Cf. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 206, 98 S.Ct. 1745, 56 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978) (assum[ing], for the purposes of a Babcock analysis, that a protest that an employer does not meet area standards is protected under section 7). [1] But the content of the literature alone does not determine whether any section 7 rights of employees have been asserted. See Lechmere, 502 U.S. at 532, 112 S.Ct. 841 (By its plain terms, . . . the NLRA confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers.); Sears, 436 U.S. at 206 n. 42, 98 S.Ct. 1745 ( Babcock makes clear that the interests being protected by according limited-access rights to nonemployee, union organizers are not those of the organizers but of the employees located on the employer's property.) The context of the distribution must also be examined. Hudgens, 424 U.S. at 521-22, 96 S.Ct. 1029; see Eastex, 437 U.S. at 572-73, 98 S.Ct. 2505 (examining context of the case in deciding whether the Babcock exceptions or a different rule should apply). The intended audience of the Carpenters' Union was the general public. No employees of the mall or of its tenants were specifically targeted by the Carpenters' Union. Although it is possible that a non-union carpenter or a potential apprentice would be at the mall on the day of a permitted distribution, there is no evidence that there was a greater likelihood of reaching a potential union member at the mall than at any other public place on that day. Accordingly, the content and context of the proposed literature distribution approaches the unprotected end of the spectrum. Though the rights of nonemployees in a distribution of literature to the general public on private property are weak, the Board's implicit conclusion that section 7 rights were at issue and that Babcock applies was reasonably based.