Opinion ID: 1281454
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who Shall Establish Reasonable Restrictions

Text: As just concluded, the Court of Appeal correctly remanded the case to the Board for the purpose of rewording its order to require the employer to permit reasonable access to the camp but, following the lead of the court in the first Court of Appeal decision in 8 ALRB 87, the Court of Appeal in this case added that the Board should make specific provisions in detail, limiting the time, hours of the day or night, number of days per year, number of organizers or United Farm Workers representatives and all in conformity with the views expressed herein. The Board is not, however, the proper entity to establish reasonable restrictions on access in the first instance. [13] Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corporation, supra, 478 F.2d 73 indicates that, even in cases where the right of access is based on the First Amendment, the owner of a labor camp is the proper party entitled to make reasonable regulations for access. The court stated [w]hile we hold that Talisman must grant access to the migrants in the labor camp, we nevertheless observe that the owner-employer may establish reasonable rules for granting access to prevent unnecessary interference with its business activities. (Italics added, Petersen, supra, 478 F.2d at p. 82.) Similarly, in National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp. (6th Cir.1948) 167 F.2d 147 it was not the NLRB which created the restrictions at issue there. Rather, the court stated that, The Board recognized ... that such right [of access to the employer's property under the NLRA] of an employee or a union representative is not unlimited. Reasonable rules by the employer limiting the exercise of this right, which are necessary in order to maintain production or discipline, will be upheld. The `lights out at 8:00 p.m.' rule in the present case, which would bar union activities after that hour is an example of such a rule. ( Id., at p. 151, italics added.) The nature of restrictions which are deemed reasonable will of course depend upon the circumstances. It is beyond cavil that union organizers and others do not have an unfettered right of access to the camp at all hours of the day or night. (See Velez v. Amenta (D.Conn. 1974) 370 F. Supp. 1250, 1256.) In National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., supra, 167 F.2d 147 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying federal labor standards under Republic Aviation, supra, 324 U.S. 793 to access to a lumber camp, upheld a lights-out rule excluding all visitors from the camp after 8 p.m. The exclusion of visitors from the bunkhouses and restriction of visitation to the recreation hall before lights-out was a much closer question. The court ultimately affirmed an NLRB order permitting access to the bunkhouse upon a showing that employees spent most of their limited free time socializing in the bunkhouse, no evidence that any of the woodsmen objected to union activities in the bunkhouse, and that no rule prohibiting union activities in bunkhouses was in effect in other camps throughout the territory. On the other hand, the United States District Court in United Farm Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Mel Finerman Co., supra, 364 F. Supp. 326, considering the scope of access to an agricultural labor camp consisting solely of group living facilities, upheld exclusion of all visitors from the bunkhouses and dining hall. Ordinarily, the Court would permit the designated representatives to have access to the facilities (bunkhouse, dining hall and bath and toilet facilities) upon invitation by any occupant. Because of the nature of the facilities ... it is not feasible for [the union's] designated representatives to carry on their organizing efforts within the facilities without invading the privacy of those migrants who have not invited the designated representative into the facilities. Therefore, the realities of the factual situation require that the designated representatives shall not enter any of the facilities to carry on their organizing efforts. ( Id., at p. 329.) [14]