Opinion ID: 790741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Handbook Language

Text: 29 Brandeis first maintains that the NLRB incorrectly concluded that its handbook section, which protects its employees from harassment by union organizers, violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. The NLRB concluded that Brandeis policy statement invites the employees to report `harassment' by union organizers attempting to get employees to sign authorization cards and that [i]t reasonably could be construed to mean that the conduct would be punished. A.R. Vol. I, NLRB Dec. at 4. According to Brandeis, however, the policy forwards the Company's legitimate goal of maintaining discipline in its facilities. Furthermore, Brandeis asserts, the provision is not so vague as to invite complaints of activities protected by the Act. 30 Section 8(a)(1) provides that [i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for any employer ... to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right[] to organize collectively under the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). In order to establish a violation of this provision, [n]o proof of coercive intent or effect is necessary... the test being whether the employer engaged in conduct, which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act. NLRB v. Gen. Thermodynamics, Inc., 670 F.2d 719, 721 (7th Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 31 One of the rights secured to employees under the Act is the right to solicit on behalf of a union organizing campaign. See, e.g., Clinton Elecs. Corp., 284 F.3d at 739. Indeed, proponents of unions may engage in persistent union solicitation even when it annoys or disturbs the employees who are being solicited. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 341 N.L.R.B. 109, 2004 WL 963370, at  (N.L.R.B. April 30, 2004), order enforced, Ryder Truck Rental v. NLRB, 401 F.3d 815 (7th Cir.2005). According to the Board, employers interfere with these rights, and therefore violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when they invite their employees to report instances of fellow employees' bothering, pressuring, abusing, or harassing them with union solicitations and imply that such conduct will be punished. Greenfield Die & Mfg. Corp., 327 N.L.R.B. 237, 238 (1998). The rationale behind this rule is that such announcements from the employer are calculated to chill even legitimate union solicitations, which do not lose their protection simply because a solicited employee rejects them and feels `bothered' or `harassed' or `abused' when fellow workers seek to persuade him or her about the benefits of unionization. Id. 8 32 This court, however, has rejected the type of per se approach adopted by the Board. [O]ur cases demonstrate that a fact-based, contextual inquiry is required to determine whether a company has violated the NLRA. Bloomington-Normal, 357 F.3d at 696. Factors to consider include: the timing of the speech, the words used in the speech, whether the speech targeted union supporters, and whether the speech was directed toward employees who were being threatened. Id. 33 After considering the factors set forth above, we conclude that the NLRB's determination—that the Brandeis handbook language violates § 8(a)(1)—is supported by substantial evidence. First, the context of the Company's policy is important. The policy is located in a section of the handbook entitled Employee Relations Philosophy, which details Brandeis' desire to remain union-free; it is not part of a more general anti-harassment policy. Second, the focus of the prohibition against harassment is union activity; there is no acknowledgment that opponents of a union may harass, interfere or coerce fellow employees into rejecting union representation. Thus, the language employed by Brandeis in its handbook stands in stark contrast to that approved by the Board in S.E. Nichols, Inc., 284 N.L.R.B. 556 (1987), which provided:  Remember, do not sign a card because you are threatened, tell us and we will protect you. It is your right to have a union. It is your right not to have a union. Our Company will try to see to it that your rights are preserved no matter how you choose. Tell us if someone is trying to stop your freedom of choice. Id. at 557 (emphasis in original). The Board found that this language merely advised all of its employees—whether pro-union, anti-union or undecided—that the Respondent would be available to protect employees from conduct that might restrain or coerce them in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Id. The same equal protection guarantee does not appear in, and cannot be gleaned from, the language employed by Brandeis. 34 Furthermore, Brandeis' policy was not promulgated in response to threats or incidents of violence. When employers use terms such as harassment after employees have been threatened or encountered violence at the hands of union proponents, employees are less likely to perceive the term as referring to protected activity. Brandeis' policy, however, was part of its handbook, which was disseminated to employees when they were hired. Thus, Brandeis employees were not able to discern any limiting principles from the circumstances under which the policy was issued. 35 It is incumbent upon employers to use language that is not reasonably subject to an interpretation that would unlawfully affect the exercise of Section 7 rights. S.E. Nichols, Inc., 284 N.L.R.B. at 557. In the present case, neither the factual context nor the language employed by Brandeis served to limit employees' understanding of what constitutes harassment under the policy; employees reasonably could conclude that engaging in protected activity was tantamount to harassment under the policy. In light of these facts—that the policy was promulgated without any knowledge of threats or harassment from the union, and targeted only union supporters—it was not unreasonable for the NLRB to conclude that the [policy] encouraged employees to report unionization efforts in violation of § 8(a)(1). Bloomington-Normal, 357 F.3d at 697.