Opinion ID: 472240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Threats to Discharge Picazzo

Text: 39 Chicago Metallic argues that the Board erred in concluding that it violated Section 8(a)(1) when it warned Picazzo not to campaign for the Union on company time. 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. Section 7 guarantees employees the right to self-organization. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157. 40 The right to self-organization must be balanced against an employer's right to control its business. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 797-98, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985-86, 89 L.Ed. 1372 (1945); Hughes Properties, Inc. v. NLRB, 758 F.2d 1320, 1321 (9th Cir.1985). In Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. at 803 & n. 10, 65 S.Ct. at 987 & n. 10, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Board's rules defining the presumptive validity or invalidity of solicitation bans. 41 A ban on all solicitation during working hours is presumptively valid, but a ban on all solicitation during non-working hours is presumptively invalid. Hughes Properties, 758 F.2d at 1322. Non-working hours include lunch or rest periods on company property. Republic Aviation Corp., 324 U.S. at 803 n. 10, 65 S.Ct. at 988 n. 10. 42 The Company argues that a ban on solicitation during company time should be presumptively valid. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has considered such a ban. 43 In Florida Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir.1976), the Fifth Circuit upheld the Board's findings that such a rule was overly broad and violative of Section 8(a)(1). It reasoned: 44 The average ... employee--through whose eyes the validity of the no-solicitation rule is measured ...--could easily interpret a prohibition of solicitation 'on the company's time' as barring solicitation during the entire time the employee was 'clocked in', including such non-working times as rest periods and coffee breaks. 45 Id.; Accord James H. Matthews & Co. v. NLRB, 354 F.2d 432, 441 (8th Cir.1965) (rule forbidding union solicitation on company time held invalid), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1002, 86 S.Ct. 1924, 16 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1966); NLRB v. Miller, 341 F.2d 870, 873-74 (2d Cir.1965) (same). 46 Similarly, the Board has found bans on solicitations during company time violative of Section 8(a)(1). Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc., 274 NLRB No. 111, slip op. at 9 (1985); Gemco, 271 NLRB 1190, 1197 (1984). 47 The Company cites no cases, and we have found none, upholding a ban on solicitations during company time. The phrase is ambiguous and the context here does not save it. [T]he risk of ambiguity must be held against the promulgator of the rule rather than against the employees who are supposed to abide by it. Miller, 341 F.2d at 874. 48 The Company argues that it did not violate Section 8(a)(1) because Picazzo was a supervisor. Generally, threats directed at supervisors for pro-union activities or sympathy do not constitute unfair labor practices. See International Longshoremen's Association, 106 S.Ct. at 1908 n.4 (employer does not commit unfair labor practice when it fires supervisor for union-related reasons); George C. Foss Co., 752 F.2d at 1409 n.1 (federal labor law protects employees but not supervisors from being discharged for their union activity or status). 49 Here, unlike the electioneering analysis, we look to Picazzo's actual duties. When considering Chicago Metallic's treatment of Picazzo, the perceptions of other employees are irrelevant. As we have noted, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Picazzo does not meet the statutory criteria of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(11) for supervisor status. Thus, we hold that he is not a supervisor for purposes of the Union's Section 8(a)(1) claim. 50 Because Picazzo does not qualify for supervisor status, the Company's warnings for campaigning on company time constitute an unfair labor practice. That portion of the Board's order published at 273 NLRB No. 207 dealing with threats of discharge for Union campaigning will be enforced. 51 ENFORCEMENT GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.