Opinion ID: 624988
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violations of Section 8(a)(1)

Text: The General Counsel asserts that Roundy's violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ousting the Union handbillers, who were engaged in protected Section 7 activity, from private property because Roundy's didn't have an exclusionary right under its nonexclusive easements. Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [Section 7]. . . . 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Section 7 of the Act provides that [e]mployees shall have the right to selforganization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 29 U.S.C. § 157. Nonemployee organizers are subject to far greater restrictions with respect to their right to access private property than employee organizers. See generally NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956) and Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 112 S.Ct. 841, 117 L.Ed.2d 79 (1992). Nonemployee means union representatives who are not employees of the targeted employer. See O'Neil's Markets v. NLRB, 95 F.3d 733, 736 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1996). An employer may generally post his property against nonemployee distribution of union literature if reasonable efforts by the union through other available channels of communication will enable it to reach the employees with its message. Babcock, 351 U.S. at 112, 76 S.Ct. 679. It is only where such access is infeasible that it is proper to balance the employees' and employers' rights. Lechmere, 502 U.S. at 538, 112 S.Ct. 841; see also O'Neil's Markets, 95 F.3d at 736-37. However, an employer has no right under the Babcock/Lechmere framework to exclude union representatives engaged in Section 7 activity from areas where it lacks an exclusionary property interest. O'Neil's Markets, 95 F.3d at 738-39 (citing Johnson & Hardin Co., 305 NLRB 690 (1991), enf'd, 49 F.3d 237 (6th Cir.1995)); see also Glendale Assoc. v. NLRB, 347 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir.2003) (Since Lechmere was decided, this Court, along with other Circuits and the Board, have found Lechmere to be inapplicable to cases where an employer excluded nonemployee union representatives in the absence of a state property right to do so.). The Supreme Court has explained that [t]he right of employers to exclude union organizers from their private property emanates from state common law, and while this right is not superseded by the NLRA, nothing in the NLRA expressly protects it. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 217 n. 21, 114 S.Ct. 771, 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994). Thus, an employer's exclusion of union representatives from private property as to which the employer lacks a property right entitling it to exclude individuals . . . violates Section 8(a)(1), assuming the union representatives are engaged in Section 7 activities. Calkins, 187 F.3d at 1088 (quotations omitted). Courts have found, as consistent with Lechmere, that an employer must have a property right to exclude even nonemployee protestors that are engaged in nonorganizational activities directed at consumers. See, e.g., O'Neil's Markets, 95 F.3d at 737; see also Calkins, 187 F.3d at 1088-89. Although Babcock and Lechmere involved organizational rights, section 7 protects other, nonorganizational activities, such as a union's peaceful area standards activity. O'Neil's Markets, 95 F.3d at 737; see also Calkins, 187 F.3d at 1089 (The protection of consumer boycott and area standards picketing falls within the plain meaning of . . . Section 7.). [3] But area-standards handbilling may warrant less protection than even nonemployee organizational activity under Section 7. See Sandusky Mall Co. v. NLRB, 242 F.3d 682, 691 (6th Cir.2001); see also Salmon Run Shopping Ctr. LLC v. NLRB, 534 F.3d 108, 115 n. 1 (2d Cir.2008). Roundy's urges us to place the burden on the General Counsel to show that Roundy's did not have an exclusionary property interest, [4] stating that a careful reading of Lechmere reveals that it does not require the employer to prove an exclusionary interest in cases involving nonemployee union solicitors. The Board however, since Lechmere, has consistently required the employer to meet a threshold burden of establishing that it had at the time it expelled the union representatives, an interest which entitled it to exclude individuals from the property. See Calkins, 323 NLRB at 1141-42, enf'd, 187 F.3d 1080; see also Research Found. of the State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 355 NLRB No. 170, 2010 WL 3446127, at . The Board has reasoned that if the employer fails to meet this burden, there is no actual conflict between private property rights and Section 7 rights, and the employer's actions therefore will be found violative of Section 8(a)(1). In re A & E Food Co. 1, Inc., 339 NLRB 860, 862 (2003) (quotations omitted). Other circuit courts agree with this rationale, explaining that when an employer lacks an interest entitling it to exclude individuals engaged in Section 7 conduct, Lechmere 's accommodation analysis is not triggered. Calkins, 187 F.3d at 1088; see also Glendale Assoc., 347 F.3d at 1153 (explaining that employers' property rights must be respected, but employers need not be accorded greater property rights than they actually possess); United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 400 v. NLRB, 222 F.3d 1030, 1034 & n. 5 (D.C.Cir.2000) (If the employer is unable to meet the burden of demonstrating the requisite property interest, its exclusion of union agents from the area constitutes a violation of section 8(a)(1).), and cases cited therein. The Court's decision in Lechmere reflects a concern for private property rights and leaves undisturbed previous Board holdings involving employers who lack a sufficient property right to exclude. O'Neil's Markets, 95 F.3d at 738-39. The Board's rule that the employer must meet a threshold burden of showing a sufficient property interest to invoke the Lechmere framework (even in cases involving area standards handbilling targeted at an employer's customers) is not inconsistent with Lechmere and is a rational interpretation of the Act, so we decline to adopt the alternative burden-shifting rule proposed by Roundy's. We must, therefore, decide whether Roundy's met its burden of showing, under Wisconsin law, that its nonexclusive easements gave it an exclusionary interest to oust the peaceful handbillers from the common areas. See Glendale Assocs., 347 F.3d at 1151. We conclude that it has not. Because the Board has no specialized expertise in interpreting state property law, we review this issue de novo. See United Food, 222 F.3d at 1035; see also Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 328 Wis.2d 613, 785 N.W.2d 615, 621 (2010). Wisconsin courts have not addressed the precise issue before us, but have set forth general principles that guide our analysis. An easement is an interest in land which is in the possession of another, creating two distinct property interests: the dominant estate, which enjoys the privileges granted by the easement, and the servient estate, which permits the exercise of those privileges. Gallagher v. Grant-Lafayette Elec. Coop., 249 Wis.2d 115, 637 N.W.2d 80, 85 (Wis.Ct.App.2001). An easement creates a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in the possession of another and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement. Borek Cranberry Marsh, 785 N.W.2d at 621 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitude § 1.2(1) (2000)); see also Richard R. Powell and Patrick J. Rohan, Powell on Real Property § 34.01 (2011). Roundy's doesn't dispute that the leases only gave it nonexclusive easements in the common areas. Where the easement grant doesn't expressly make it exclusive, the easement holder does not acquire dominion over the property affected, but is entitled `only to a reasonable and usual enjoyment thereof.' Lintner v. Office Supply Co., 196 Wis. 36, 219 N.W. 420, 425 (1928). Nevertheless, Roundy's argues that it had an exclusionary right in the easements because it had the obligation to maintain the common areas (or pay the landlord for maintenance). But maintenance obligations, alone, don't establish a right to exclude. See, e.g., Garrett v. O'Dowd, 321 Wis.2d 535, 775 N.W.2d 549, 553-54 (Wis.Ct.App.2009) (even where agreement obligated grantees to maintain and pay taxes on the easement, the easement was nonexclusive where the agreement didn't state otherwise); see also O'Neil's, 95 F.3d at 739 (applying Missouri law) (employer's exercise of maintenance and control over property could not override the unambiguous language in lease granting nonexclusive easement); United Food, 222 F.3d at 1034-35 (applying Virginia law) (nonexclusive easement didn't provide employer with right to oust nonemployee organizers even though employer had obligations to clean and maintain those areas). Further, numerous leases indicate that the landlord, albeit with Roundy's consent, may promulgate reasonable, nondiscriminatory rules and regulations for the use of the common areas, suggesting that Roundy's cannot promulgate such rules on its own. Although Roundy's had a practice of ejecting unwanted third parties from the common areas surrounding its stores, there was no evidence that its landlords were aware (or otherwise approved) of this conduct. Roundy's also argues that Wisconsin statutory law provides even nonexclusive easement owners with a civil action to oust those that interfere with the use and enjoyment of the easement, citing to Wis. Stat. §§ 840.01 et seq. and Wis. Stat. §§ 844.01 et seq. [5] Section 844.01(1) provides that [a]ny person owning or claiming an interest in real property may bring an action claiming physical injury to, or interference with, the property or the person's interest therein. . . . Section 840.01 defines interest in real property to include easements, and Section 844.01(3) defines [i]nterference as any activity . . . which lessens the possibility of use or enjoyment of the interest. The statute establishes remedies for interfering with such property interests that include damages and injunctive relief. See Wis. Stat. § 840.03(1) (Any person having an interest in real property may bring an action relating to that interest. . . .). [6] Roundy's asserts that under this statute, it has a right to bring a civil action to enforce and protect its interests in the easements. Section 844.01(1), however, doesn't create an independent cause of action; it is a remedial and procedural statute that sets forth the remedies available when a cause of action exists. See Menick v. City of Menasha, 200 Wis.2d 737, 547 N.W.2d 778, 782 (Wis.Ct.App.1996) (citing Shanak v. City of Waupaca, 185 Wis.2d 568, 518 N.W.2d 310, 320 (Wis.Ct.App. 1994) (stating that Section 844.01 creates no rights or duties. It does not purport to create a cause of action. It is a remedial and procedural statute.)). In other words, Section 844.01 only provides remedies for persons who are injured as a result of an interference with their interests in real property. See Schultz v. Trascher, 249 Wis.2d 722, 640 N.W.2d 130, 139 (Wis.Ct.App.2001). Roundy's' reliance on Section 844.01 is therefore misplaced. Roundy's must show under Wisconsin common law that it had a sufficient property interest to oust the handbillers. Wisconsin courts have maintained that [a] written easement holder has the right to use the easement in accordance with the express terms of the easement grant. Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc., 328 Wis.2d 436, 787 N.W.2d 6, 14 (2010) (citing Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis.2d 338, 254 N.W.2d 282, 285 (1977)). The language of the easement grant determines the primary purposes of the easement. See id.; see also Powell on Real Property § 34.12. [E]very easement carries with it by implication the right to do what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement in light of the purpose for which it was granted. Gallagher, 637 N.W.2d at 86. An obstruction or disturbance of an easement is anything which wrongfully interferes with the privilege to which the owner of the easement is entitled by making its use less convenient and beneficial than before. Obstructions or disturbances are unauthorized and constitute nuisances. McDonald, 254 N.W.2d at 285-86 (quoting 28 C.J.S. Easements, § 96). Because Roundy's has rights to the extent of its nonexclusive use in the easements, it can enjoin third parties when they unreasonably interfere with this use. See id. at 285 (stating that owner of property may not unreasonably interfere with easement holder's use); see also Lintner v. Augustine Furn. Co., 199 Wis. 71, 225 N.W. 193, 194 (1929) (allowing nonexclusive easement holder to seek injunctive relief where blockage of alley by non-owner for five minutes several times a day was material and unreasonable); Restatement of Property § 511 (explaining that an easement holder has the right to be free from interference by third parties); Powell on Real Property § 34.17 (easement owner can bring action to enjoin interference with easement by third parties). But as noted, the interference must be unreasonable with the easement's owner's intended use. See Lintner, 225 N.W. at 194; see also Vance v. Ford, 187 Or.App. 412, 417-18, 422, 67 P.3d 412 (2003) (requiring a showing of substantial or unreasonable interference with easement). Physical encroachment of the easement is not necessary to unreasonably interfere with its intended use. See McDonald, 254 N.W.2d at 286. A few leases indicate that the the easement shall be used for all customary and proper purposes and others state that no use of the [common areas] shall be made which detracts from the first-class nature of the Shopping Center. . . . Still others require the landlord or tenant to maintain the common areas in accordance with good shopping practice. The easements are clearly intended to provide Roundy's, its employees, customers, and invitees (and the other tenants' employees, customers, and invitees) with ingress and egress to the stores, but are not so limited; rather, they are intended for use in a manner conducive to the commercial businesses that share those areas. The ultimate question, therefore, is whether the handbillers' actions unreasonably interfered with this purpose of the easements? To answer this question, it is helpful to look at other circuit court decisions addressing similar questions under the laws of various states. The Eighth Circuit in O'Neil's found that the nonexclusive easement granted to O'Neil's didn't provide it with direct authority to exclude persons from the sidewalk in front of its store. 95 F.3d at 739. The nonexclusive easement in that case was for ingress, egress, and parking. Id. at 734. O'Neil's prohibited union representatives from peacefully distributing handbills to its customers while on the sidewalk. Id. at 735. The court noted that under Missouri property law, an easement is a nonpossessory interest in land that entitles the owner to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists. Id. at 739 (quotations omitted). An easement owner `is debarred from actions traditionally established for the protection of a possession, such as trespass, writ of entry, and ejectment, because the easement owner does not have the prerequisite possession.' Id. (quotations omitted). Interference with an easement under Missouri law lies instead in a nuisance action. Id. Because the record didn't support an inference that the union's activities interfered with the right of O'Neil's, its employees, or customers to use the easement property, O'Neil's couldn't exclude the handbillers. Id.; see also Johnson & Hardin, 49 F.3d at 240-41 (finding employer violated § 8(a)(1) by ousting peaceful handbillers who weren't interfering with the employer's use of the nonexclusive easement for ingress and egress to its premises); see also A & E Food Co., 339 NLRB at 863-64 (respondent had no authority under nonexclusive easement to exclude union agents from the shopping center property). The D.C. Circuit similarly found that a nonexclusive easement didn't provide the employer with the right to oust handbillers from outside its storefront. See United Food, 222 F.3d at 1034-35. The court noted that under Virginia law, the easement holder couldn't bring a trespass claim and only the owner or lessee of the sidewalks had the authority to exclude the organizers. Id. at 1036. Because there was no evidence in the leases that Farm Fresh had control over the sidewalks and Farm Fresh could only use the sidewalks in common with other co-tenants, it lacked power to exclude those it disliked from the area. Id. The court reasoned, [w]e are unable to see why the power to expel peaceful organizers from an adjacent sidewalk is reasonably necessary for the use of leased property. Id. at 1037. Easements of access, the court found, don't entitle employers to exclude union representatives from adjacent common areas. Id. Because there was no evidence that the union representative impeded access to the store or interfered in any way with Farm Fresh's obligation to clean and maintain the sidewalks, the employer lacked the requisite property interest to exclude the organizers. Id. at 1038. The Fourth Circuit, analyzing Pennsylvania law, came to a different conclusion in Weis Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 265 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir.2001). The court in Weis found that a nonexclusive easement under Pennsylvania law gave the employer sufficient property rights to oust handbillers from the sidewalk. The court based its ruling on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that found that a nonexclusive easement holder and property owner could oust union representatives from common areas and in doing so, indicated that the easement holder had rights comparable to the property owner. Id. at 247 (citing Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. v. Amalgamated Food Emps. Union, Local 590, AFL-CIO, 425 Pa. 382, 227 A.2d 874 (1967), see Weis, 265 F.3d at 247-48 for subsequent procedural history). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Logan Valley reasoned that the invitation to the public was limited to those who might benefit the easement holder's and owner's enterprises, including potential customers as well as the employees of the shopping center. Id. (citing Logan Valley Plaza, 227 A.2d at 877). Based on this directive from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit concluded that because the union organizers were not members of the public who might benefit Weis' enterprise, . . . their uninvited intrusion on the private property, the easement of Weis, was unlawful under the real estate law of Pennsylvania, which prevails here. Id. at 248. Even if Pennsylvania provides easement owners with rights akin to property owners for purposes of excluding unwanted visitors, as found in Weis, see also Kao v. Haldeman, 556 Pa. 279, 728 A.2d 345, 349 (1999), we are called upon to use our best judgment to estimate how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would decide this issue. See Blood v. VH-1 Music First, 668 F.3d 543, 546-47 (7th Cir.2012). We find that Wisconsin case law is more aligned with Missouri and Virginia law in recognizing a distinction between a property owner's and nonexclusive easement owner's right to exclude unwanted visitors from the common areas. The Board properly applied Wisconsin law when concluding that peaceful union protestors, who do not obstruct patrons' ingress or egress or otherwise disrupt their shopping at Roundy's, are not unreasonably interfering with Roundy's use and enjoyment of its easement. We recognize that an interference under Wisconsin law need not be physical, see McDonald, 254 N.W.2d at 286, and the easements at issue aren't necessarily limited to ingress and egress, but the ALJ specifically found that the handbillers were engaged in peaceful conduct protected by Section 7, and there is nothing in the record to show that they were disruptive or that customers were inconvenienced or disconcerted by their presence. Under these facts to which we limit our holding, we do not find that Roundy's had a right under Wisconsin property law to exclude the Union representatives. Because nonexclusive easement holders do not have property rights comparable to owners or lessees under Wisconsin law (they do not hold possessory interests), the Babcock/Lechmere framework doesn't apply, and the Board had to determine how such intermediate property rights intersect with Section 7 rights. The Board's finding that Roundy's' property rights under Wisconsin law were insufficient to override the nonemployees' Section 7 rights was reasonable. The Board is entitled to a certain degree of deference when engaging in such line drawing in the context of labor relations under the Act. See Lineback v. Irving Ready-Mix, Inc., 653 F.3d 566, 572 (7th Cir.2011); see also Johnson & Hardin, 49 F.3d at 242 (affording the Board's decisionthat the employer lacked a property right entitling it to exclude union organizers and therefore violated § 8(a)(1) of the Actdeference). It was Roundy's burden to prove that it had a state property interest sufficient to oust the nonemployee handbillers. We conclude that Roundy's has not met that burden, that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that the Board's legal conclusionthat a store owner who has only a nonexclusive easement in the common areas violates Section 8(a)(1) when excluding peaceful, nondisruptive handbillers engaged in protected Section 7 activitiesis rational and consistent with the Act.