Opinion ID: 790741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prohibition of Discussion of Union

Text: 45 Brandeis also asks us to review the Board's determination that Muraski's oral prohibition of union discussions during work time violated § 8(a)(1). Brandeis argues that it was entitled to impose a rule that prohibits union solicitations in order to maintain productivity and discipline. The NLRB urges that the broad prohibition against union discussions cannot be justified on these grounds. 46 Brandeis does not dispute the general proposition that an employer violates § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when it discriminatorily prohibits employees from discussing union-related topics during work time while tolerating other subjects of discussion. See, e.g., Atlas Metal Parts Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 660 F.2d 304, 311 (7th Cir.1981). Brandeis, however, maintains that, in the absence of some evidence that anti-union animus motivated Muraski in prohibiting the discussions, the rule should have been sustained. Brandeis relies upon Adtranz ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, N.A., Inc. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 19 (D.C.Cir.2001), in support of its position. 47 Brandeis' reliance on Adtranz is misplaced. In Adtranz, the company had a rule in its employee handbook against soliciting and distribution without authorization. Id. at 28. The District of Columbia Circuit first noted that the rule in question only applied to conduct during working time and in the work place. Id. The court continued: `Working time is for work' is a long accepted maxim of labor relations. Therefore rules prohibiting solicitation during working time are presumptively lawful because such rules imply that solicitation is permitted during nonworking time, a term that refers to the employees' own time. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, the court observed that Adtranz's rule was an across the board policy, and there [wa]s no suggestion that antiunion animus motivated the policy or that the rule discriminate[d] against unionization efforts or other protected activity. Id. at 29. Thus, among the court's reasons for sustaining Adtranz's no solicitation rule were that the rule was not intended to, nor was it enforced in such a manner as to, discriminate against speech or actions protected by the Act. 48 The same cannot be said regarding Muraski's instruction to Benefield that he and Cook refrain from discussing union stuff. There is evidence that the statement was motivated by Benefield's and Cook's prior solicitation efforts, and there is no question that it targeted only future solicitations on behalf of the Union, as opposed to all speech during work time. 49 Brandeis is free to adopt nondiscriminatory policies that forward its legitimate objectives of maintaining plant productivity and discipline. However, those policies may not target, either through design or enforcement, activity protected by the Act. Because the oral rule promulgated by Muraski was directed only at discussions concerning the Union, the NLRB's conclusion that the prohibition violated the NLRA is supported by substantial evidence.