Opinion ID: 759770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photographing of Pickets

Text: 35 The second issue on appeal is whether the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by taking a photograph of Orin Lemin while he picketed against Clock Electric at one of the Company's job sites. Section 7 of the NLRA gives employees the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations ... and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ... 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA gives effect to this right by making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of [their Section 7] rights ... 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The test for determining whether an employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) is whether the employer's conduct tends to be coercive or tends to interfere with the employees' exercise of their rights. United Parcel Service v. N.L.R.B., 41 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (6th Cir.1994)(citing N.L.R.B. v. Okun Bros. Shoe Store, Inc., 825 F.2d 102, 105 (6th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 935, 108 S.Ct. 1109, 99 L.Ed.2d 270 (1988)). In making this determination, the Board considers the total context in which the challenged conduct occurs and is justified in viewing the issue from the standpoint of its impact upon the employees. Id. (citations omitted). 36 It is well-settled Board law that absent proper justification, the photographing of employees engaged in protected concerted activities violates the Act because it has a tendency to intimidate. F.W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197, 310 NLRB No. 204, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 1187 (N.L.R.B., Apr.27, 1993), (citing Waco, Inc., 273 N.L.R.B. 746, 747 (1984)). In F.W. Woolworth Co., after finding that there was no basis for the employer to have anticipated misconduct by employees who were engaged in handbilling, the Board stated, 37 [W]e adhere to the principle that photographing in the mere belief that something 'might' happen does not justify Respondent's conduct when balanced against the tendency of that conduct to interfere with employees' right to engage in concerted activity. 38 F.W. Woolworth, Co., 310 N.L.R.B. No. 204, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) at 1188 (citing Flambeau Plastics Corp., 167 N.L.R.B. 735, 743 (1967), enfd. 401 F.2d 128, 136 (7th Cir.1968)). Accord NLRB v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, 542 F.2d 691, 701 (7th Cir.1976) (concluding that the Board may properly require a company to provide solid justification for its resort to anticipatory photographing). While the Board found that an employer's 'mere observation' of open, public union activity on or near its property does not constitute unlawful surveillance, when surveillance activity constitutes more than mere observation, the employer's conduct violates the Act. F.W. Woolworth Co., 310 N.L.R.B. No. 204, 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) at 1188. The Board held that [p]hotographing and videotaping clearly constitute more than 'mere observation' because such pictorial recordkeeping tends to create fear among employees of future reprisals. Id. (citation omitted). 39 On or about July 15, 1994, Lemin's foreman took a photograph of Lemin holding a picket sign that read Clock Electric Turns Back The Clock On Decent Wages And Benefits. Lemin was engaged in picketing at a site where Clock Electric was currently performing work. Although the Company seeks to justify its conduct by arguing that it had been subjected to unlawful picketing and secondary boycotts in the past and therefore instructed its foremen to take photographs to support its defense in potential subsequent litigation, there is no evidence that the picketing here was in any way unlawful. Indeed, when the order to take the photograph was given, the Company knew that it was Lemin, one of its own employees, who was picketing. F.W. Woolworth Co. rejected that an employer would be justified in photographing its employees in the mere belief that something might happen. In this case, Clock was not justified in photographing its employee while that employee was engaged in picketing in the mere belief that the Company might be subject to a secondary boycott. Insofar as the Company wished to take a photograph for the purpose of identifying the type and lawfulness of the ongoing concerted activity, the Company may have been entitled to take a picture of the sign alone. There was no legal justification here for taking a picture of the individual holding it. 40 The Company also argues that it did not violate the Act by photographing Lemin because Lemin was a paid union organizer, and having his photograph taken on the picket line was more likely a badge of honor than intimidating. Moreover, the Company contends that Lemin did not in fact appear intimidated in the photograph. As observed by the ALJ, however, the Company cited no authority in support of either argument. The Company ignored that fact that Lemin was an employee. Paid union organizers enjoy equal status as employees under Section 2(3) of the Act, N.L.R.B. v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85, 98, 116 S.Ct. 450, 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 371 (1995). Because Lemin was an employee, he was entitled to the protection of Section 8(a)(1) that prohibits unjustified anticipatory photographing.