Opinion ID: 185453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restrictions on Oscoda Employee Handbilling in the East Tawas Parking Lot

Text: 8 On April 28, 1998 and again on May 14, 1998, employees from the Oscoda plant entered the East Tawas parking lot in order to distribute Union literature and solicit signatures for the Union organizing petition. Despite the fact that the handbillers identified themselves as ITT employees from the Oscoda plant, supervisors from the East Tawas plant requested them to leave the premises because they were trespassing on private property. The handbilling employees left without incident. Shortly thereafter the UAW filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board, alleging that management's application of the no-access policy to off-site employees violated 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. 9 At a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), petitioner presented evidence that its no-access policy was both neutral and justified. East Tawas supervisor Jeff Minnick testified that management had instigated the zerotolerance, no-access policy in March 1998 following installation of a six-foot high cyclone fence around the parking lot. The new zero-tolerance policy limited parking lot access at all times solely to East Tawas employees. There was one exception: relatives or friends of employees could enter the parking lot to pick up/drop off East Tawas employees as long as they did not exit their vehicles. Minnick cited a number of precipitating events as grounds for the stricter policy, including several acts of automobile vandalism, youths driving through the parking lot at night, nonemployees engaging employees in fights after work, and one incident in which an estranged husband of an East Tawas employee threatened to bring a gun to the plant in search of his wife. 10 The ALJ was unpersuaded by ITT's evidence. Quoting Tri-County Medical Center, Inc., 222 N.L.R.B. 1089 (1976), the ALJ noted that,  'except where justified by business reasons, a rule which denies off-duty employees entry to parking lots, gates, and other outside nonworking areas will be found invalid.'  ITT Industries, Inc., 331 N.L.R.B. No. 7, at 4 (May 10, 2000) (Board Decision) (quoting Tri-County, 222 N.L.R.B. at 1089). The ALJ was not impressed by the fact that the handbillers were not only off-duty, but also offsite, employees, remarking that employees of the employer who work at one plant are still considered employees of the employer if they handbill at another of the employer's plants. Board Decision, at 4 (citing S. Cal. Gas Co., 321 N.L.R.B. 551 (1996), and U.S. Postal Serv., 318 N.L.R.B. 466 (1995)). Moreover, Oscoda and East Tawas employees belonged to the same representational unit. Board Decision, at 4. 11 Having found that the Tri-County test applied, the ALJ refused to consider ITT's evidence of reasonable alternative means available to the Oscoda handbillers for communicating with East Tawas employees. Id. As to the proffered justifications for applying the policy to off-site employees, the ALJ found ITT's reasons to be woefully inadequate, and belied by the policy of permitting entry to friends and spouses to pick up or drop off East Tawas employees. Id. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, and ordered management at the Northern Plants to grant parking-lot access to off-site employees for the purpose of distributing union materials. 12