Document: 442 U.S. 773 99 S.Ct. 2598 61 L.Ed.2d 251 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Petitioner,v.BAPTIST HOSPITAL, INC., Respondent. No. 78-223. Argued April 23, 1979. Decided June 20, Syllabus Intervenor labor union filed unfair practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board respect to respondent hospital's rule prohibiting solicitation by its employees at all times "in any area of Hospital which is accessible or utilized public," including lobbies, gift shop, cafeteria, and entrances on first floor, as well corridors, sitting rooms, public restrooms other floors. In justification rule, offered extensive evidence, through testimony doctors hospital officials, need for prevent interference patients' treatment convalescence, especially applicable in corridors rooms adjoining upper floors hospital. After applying presumption that no-solicitation was invalid except "immediate patient-care areas," NLRB concluded had failed meet burden placed upon it such presumption, found there no demonstrated likelihood outside areas" would disrupt patient care disturb patients, and, accordingly, issued an order from than areas." The Court Appeals denied enforcement order, holding presented sufficient evidence ill effects justify broad prohibition solicitation. Held: 1. Given definition areas "such operating places where patients receive treatment," NLRB's prevents not only shop but also adjoin are rooms. Pp. 778-781. 2. correctly lacked substantial record support forbidding having either therapy Nothing provided basis, those areas, doubting accuracy doctors' presence within hearing may have adverse their recovery. 784-786. 3. There was, however, conclusion justified lobbies floor While directly contradicting expert importance a tranquil atmosphere successful care, nevertheless, when viewed whole, be regarded fairly insufficient rebut needs essential do require banning areas. 786-787. 4. This does agree apparent view irrational respects, since experience cases Beth Israel v. NLRB, 437 483, present one makes clear least some hospitals often will adversely affect patients. But this case similar cast serious doubt so sweeping embraces occupied 787-790. 6 Cir., 576 F.2d 107, affirmed part vacated remanded part. Norton J. Come, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Laurence Gold, intervenor-petitioner Local 150-T, Service Emp. Intern. Union. Fred W. Elarbee, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL, delivered opinion Court. 1 presents question validity (Board) respondent, Baptist (Hospital), enforcing against "on behalf organization during nonworking time immediate 2 * nonprofit general 600 beds 1,800 employees. For several years prior 1974, enforced anywhere premises.1 intervenor, Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union), August 1974 began campaign organize Hospital's Hospital, partly response organizational activity, promulgated new public." These include parts open visitors, employee allowed work nonwork time, distributions time.2 3 Union Board, thereupon complaint Hospital. focused primarily charging proscriptions contained violated § 8(a)(1) Act (Act), amended, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1).3 testimonial introduced both General Counsel Administrative Law Judge invalid, Inc., 223 N.L.R.B. 344, 347 (1976). agreed, cease desist "[p]romulgating, maintaining effect, enforcing, regulation soliciting Id., 346.4 4 sought Appeals. reviewing before court solicitation.5 accordingly Board's order. 107 (C.A.6 1978). We granted petition certiorari, 439 1065, 829, 59 30 (1979), now affirm vacate remand II 5 implementing extension health-care institutions,6 has modified regarding employer regulations Because usual rules invalid7 gives too little weight avoid disruption disturbance setting, indicated regard presumptively areas.8 98 2463, 57 370 (1978), considered acceptability use Board. At issue cafeteria coffeeshop. Court, course affirming decision struck down described approach rules. 7 "The [immediate areas] required striking balance employees' interests activity. determined, should lounges cafeterias absent showing necessarily result if distribution were permitted 495, S.Ct., 2471. 8 merit Israel's argument inconsistent legislative intent underlying institutions. Congress committed task appropriate among employees, employers, role familiar contexts. supra, 496-497, 500-501, 2471-2472, 2473-2474, Hudgens 424 507, 521-523, 96 1029, 1037-1038, 47 196 And Board—solicitation prohibited necessary patients—is Act. 497-500, 2471-2473. Accordingly, held "that requiring facilities permit facility prohibitions operations consistent Act." U.S., 2477. 9 scope depends phrase occasion determine review limits definition. attack entirely coffeeshop, limited requirement "[r]escind written literature coffeeshop." 1193, 1199 (1976) (emphasis added); see 554 477, 482 (CA1 1977), aff'd, (1978). essential, understanding operation final case. prohibits charged overly N.L.R.B., 347, 355. covers explicitly application care."9 10 Neither nor mentioned respective opinions exact they assigned term But, remarked, F.2d, 109, based ruling analysis adopted St. John's & School Nursing, 222 1150 (1976), enf. part, 557 1368 (CA10 1977). See 344 n.2. stated treatment, x-ray 1150. Thus, appears assumed these treating broader ban invalid. given rooms.10 III 11 course, more place proving, applies, "where health patients." 2477, accord, id., 2471.11 introduce proscription coffeeshop "patient [was] voluntary, random, infrequent," "critical significance 1.56% cafeteria's patrons 502, 2474; 508-509, 2477-2478 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring judgment); 516-517, 2481-2482 (POWELL, judgment). 12 case, contrast, offered, administrator, rule. after it, presumption. doing so, made finding fact 357; 109. 13 Such findings binding courts, supported "substantial whole." Act, 10(e), 160(e). When lack record, courts must set them aside, along orders rest findings. Procedure 706(2)(E); Universal Camera Corp. 340 474, 490, 71 456, 465, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Appeals, exercising function, determined contrary proof adequate think correct position lies between taken below. dispute evidentiary concluding protection 14 Vice President Personnel Services, Victory, testified because concern about activity App. 5-6, 31. purpose he indicated, protect families disquiet might perceived staff concerns 12, 13. rests, Victory's words, experience: "we anytime we anything lets [sic ] family our mind very disruptive sometimes affects patient's ability recover." 12. Chief Medical Staff, Ricketson, echoed rationale emphasizing "psychological attitudes [of patients] play good part," 57, determining success treatment. 53, 57-58, 62. Another doctor, Birmingham, "[p]eople who physically emotionally upset," create tranquillity most conducive 43-44. laid great stress aspect stating "[t]hese witnesses, two physicians experienced repeatedly referred necessity creating throughout visitors. medical witnesses related well-being distinction hospital." 109-110.12 15 concerning detailed illustration Patients critical fragile conditions move moved en route convalescence. 10, 24, 54, 64.13 increased emphasis modern mobility important known, 40-41, 54. Small floors, themselves, provide visit friends, confer families—often crisis. 40, 55-56. statements Ricketson Birmingham 39-40, 16 uncontradicted even under here. 26 nurses' stations14 utility located lounges, maintenance laundry buildings. 8, 16, 25-26. Especially upholding first-floor availability alternative locations solicitation, though dispositive, lends As remarked Israel: 17 "[I]n context facilities, employer's interest protecting cannot gainsaid. context, means communication not, inquiry . ., here demands finely calibrated scale. example, factor evaluating permissibility restrictions same facility." 505, 2476. 18 conclude that, 19 said, No professional judgments areas.15 frequency floor. 11-13, 27, 36-38. It normally remain above visits then occasionally. 28, 35-36, 64. fact, special permission leave his room located, take meals cafeteria. 64; 348. From reasonably judged fit withstand activities Moreover, Victory kinds unlikely significant impact care. 31-32, thus IV 20 addition sufficiency refusing enforce "In setting hospital," stated, "it difficult define care." 110. Since many concluded, irrational, prove particular patient-access interfere 21 is, settled law applied sound factual connection proved inferred facts. Republic Aviation 324 793, 804-805, 65 982, 988, 989, 89 1372 (1945), "[l]ike statutory established regulation, rules], perhaps varying degree, rationality what inferred." More recently, Israel, again recognized duty presumptions "for consistency rationality." 501, 2474. 22 share does, amendments each making attempt overcome effect rebutted been reviewed above. Baylor University Center 188 U.S.App.D.C. 578 351 remanded, 9, 299, 58 202 demonstrating extensive. 23 preventing crowding seriously debated. Experienced extent congestion impedes annoys Quick unimpeded passage hallways shown imperative efficient certain emergency services, cardiac arrest unit. serve passageways doctors, medicine, viewing nursery storerooms variety equipment available moment's notice. deal physical undertaken [the hospital] actually took departments served waiting room." U.S.App.D.C., 113-114, 355-356 (footnotes omitted). 24 Inc. (first case) unsupported save "the 'strictly areas' interpreted halls, stairways, elevators, 1375. 25 decide portion undertake framing Indeed, development function date raises doubts whether interpretation adequately takes into account practices methods incident delivery services hospital.16 continuous usefulness mindful Court's admonition Israel. " '[T]he [bears] heavy continuing responsibility policies various hospitals. Hospitals carry utmost seriousness importance. They give rise unique considerations apply industrial settings familiar. stand ready revise rulings future demonstrates jeopardized.' 508, quoting 481. V 27 housing judgment. judgment vacated, further proceedings opinion. 28 So ordered. BLACKMUN, concurring. I join write underline plainly said opinion, ante, 789-790, n. turn presented. What true another's. continue difficulty perceiving rational recognition inappropriate department store, 511-512, nn. 3, 2479-2480, (1978) 2477 (concurring opinion), retail (usually operated not-for-profit basis) last paragraph 790, overemphasized. 31 BURGER, 32 concur basis accepts valid violate right organize. denies ground evidence. 33 "evidence" needed establish proposition primary mission every tends objective tolerated. A religious choir singing chapel desirable interferes allowed. 34 To supportable grounds irrational. 2474, me, wholly removes absolute authority control devoted frequented that: (1) patients; (2) once deprived scrutinized independent That examination leads me 35 short reasons POWELL's 510-514, 2478-2480, joined. differs factory establishment. light analogous restaurants stores. 511-513, 2479-2480. 36 contrary. stressed possible revision activities. 507-508, BRENNAN, speaking carefully explained employee-service area, 506, 2476, facility. 37 properly turns whole. On 782-786, seems fundamental rights affected superior carrying out mission. 38 central "business" business sense generally used fully statement "[n]othing [testimony] recovery." Ante, 784. union's membership severely undercut abundant Whatever resolved favor protection. elevate unions whose highest higher plane 39 786-787, maintained accommodation visitors wish purchase articles "patient-care" area; area. 40 whom WHITE MARSHALL join, 41 Sixth Circuit circumstances bans narrowly circumscribed: 42 'Whether whole agency keeping Courts intervene ought rare instance standard misapprehended grossly misapplied.' 491, 466, 43 believe "misapprehended misapplied" substantial-evidence patient-floor 44 notes, "[t]he floor," 786. eat 348 (1976); small number 50, generally, could nonimmediate areas—that met affirmative demonstrate "necessary patients," clearly determination overcome, Appeals' constituted gross misapplication findings.* 45 adjoin, to, "[p]atients convalescence," Considerable additional suggested hospital, 782-784. mean de novo, inexorably driven overcome. sit first, second, instance. overturn substantiality unless misapplied review. questions say appellate erred 46 Both base dispositions case; neither rejects legality applied. 789. dicta, 788-789. sentiments. "[T]he Board," 789, conclusions matters traditionally accorded considerable deference. Iron Workers, 434 335, 350, 651, 660, 54 586 (1978); Weingarten, 420 251, 266-267, 959, 968, 171 (1975). decisions exception Although "give settings," therefore "stand jeopardized," 2478, itself sensitive difference workplace. reflects sensitivity. notes: 48 "Because 778. 49 Judges, like public, solely confronts day complexities relations policy reason vested responsibility" developing industry." 50 "Here, contexts policy, '[t]he ultimate problem balancing conflicting legitimate interests. effectuate national delicate responsibility, subject judicial review.' narrow: adopts judicially reviewable rationality, satisfies criteria, enforced." Ibid. 51 stage, warrant second-guessing handling "difficult labor-management relations. read: form raffle, charity drives, etc., strictly anyone solicit while premises without approval Administration. Violation disciplinary action. discover persons unauthorized report immediately Supervisor." keep salesmen 348, 357 (CA6 governing provides: "No solicitations kind, memberships subscriptions, non-work public. Anyone subscriptions supposed working, way working. thereby neglects others likewise circulars printed materials, shall time." All parties imposed conformity existing law. Section 8(a)(1), forth 158(a)(1), "to with, restrain, coerce exercise self-organization collective bargaining] guaranteed section 157 [Title 29]." 8(a)(3) 158(a)(3), discriminating employee, Russell French, sustained charge, ordering reinstate French pay him wages lost discrimination. died leaving backpay. did portions backpay previously ordered unrelated 111. questioned disposition claim. 1(a) order; 346. 2(b) directed rescind 346, 361. noted extend parking lots. denying construe buildings exterior adjacent comports administrative complaint. 34, 45, 63. July 26, 88 Stat. 395; 485, n.1, 2466, 803-804, n.10, 987-988, (1945). announced modification subsequent involving hospitals, including, 1193 enf'd, 477 Lutheran Milwaukee, 224 176 564 208 (CA7 438 902, 3118, 1145 Center, 225 771 351, Joseph 228 158 (1977). recommended ALJ phrased terms "nonworking (Hospital forbidden areas"), substituted never published definite list included nothing views 110-111, 352-353, excluded restatement likely one. Solicitation nurses, staff, conducted impede efforts caring nonetheless exposed it. BLACKMUN commented perceptively peaceful relaxed "Hospitals, all, factories mines assembly plants. human ailments treated, relatives alike emotional strain worry, pleasing comforting principal facets day's family—irrespective management oriented—need restful, uncluttered, relaxing, helpful atmosphere, rather remindful tensions marketplace sick bed." 509, 2478 elevators stairways moving being specific them. exempts stations working time. 18-19, 25. acceptance partition surrounding breaks work. threaten always there. appeals whole," 160(e) added). Here, favorable lobbies. houses complex array techniques defy simple classification. undergoing moment cared settings—recovery intensive-care units, wards, encouraged walk, families. different layout resolutions addition, outpatient clinics "shortstay" unit, 35, raise nature rendered Some movement (and equipment) 54; 355-356. Still another group shops, problems "[t]here coffeeshops patient-relative oriented, despite employee-patrons." discharging administration frame administer careful attention wide organizations involved one, view, urging abandon simplistic care" criterion. Brief 38-42. partially due misapprehension legal merits cafeterias. "did case" justifying restaurants. 110 insistence former, latter, rejected District Columbia Subsequent below, upheld cafeterias, 505-507, 2476-2477, question. below benefit favorably

Category: 6