Opinion ID: 2994613
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Employee Handbook

Text: Last, we consider the Board’s conclusion that ACE/CO violated section 8(a)(1) by stating in its employee handbook its intention to do everything possible to maintain our company’s union-free status for the benefit of both our employees and [the company]. The handbook, including that statement, was originally distributed in 1991, more than three years before the union campaign. It was contained in a section entitled What about a Union? that described ACE/CO’s prior bad history with a union and announced its opposition to unions. The handbook was re-issued in February 1995, shortly after the election. This section was unchanged. The ALJ (and then the Board) found that this statement, taken in the context of other unfair labor practices, was itself unlawful because the employees might understand it as conveying the message that ACE/CO would use even illegal tactics to keep a union out. The Board relied on its decision in Gravure Packaging, Inc., 321 NLRB 1296 (1996), in which it had found a violation of section 8(a)(1) when the employer told the employees in the heat of an election campaign that he would do everything in his power to remain non-union. Id. at 1299. ACE/CO responds that the more apt analogy for its case is the Board’s decision in Ross Stores, Inc., 329 NLRB No. 59, 1999 WL 820559 (Sept. 30, 1999). There, the employer’s president said that he would do everything in his power to keep the union out of the building. The Board found no objective basis to conclude that the president’s statement implied an unwillingness to take unlawful actions. Id. at . One thing seems clear--evaluations of statements like the one before us must be made in the full context of each case. While that normally counsels deference to the Board, it does not imply a rubber stamp. The objective evidence in this case gives no reason to believe that the employees would have perceived the ACE/CO handbook statement as something indicating a willingness to use unlawful tactics to keep the union out. If this statement, drafted long before any organizing campaign was on the horizon, is unlawful because it does not expressly disclaim all illegal activity, then no handbook would pass muster unless it had such an express disclaimer. In our view, the statute does not take such a dim view of the law-abiding tendencies of employers, and we will not do so either. We decline to enforce this part of the Board’s order.