Guard Publishing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
571 F.3d 53, 387 U.S. App. D.C. 53, 186 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by discriminatorily enforcing its facially neutral communication policy against union-related communications if it permits other non-work-related messages, and by prohibiting the display of union insignia by employees without demonstrating compelling 'special circumstances.'
Facts:
- In 1996, Guard Publishing Company (Register-Guard) adopted a Communication Systems Policy (CSP) stating that company communication systems are for business and not to be used to solicit or proselytize for commercial ventures, religious/political causes, outside organizations, or other non-job-related solicitations.
- Register-Guard employees regularly used company e-mail for work but also for personal messages like baby announcements, party invitations, sports tickets, and dog walking requests without reprimand; Managing Editor Dave Baker also sent e-mails seeking volunteers for the United Way.
- On May 4, 2000, Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and union president, sent an e-mail to numerous employees clarifying information about a previous union rally and police contact.
- On May 5, 2000, Baker sent Prozanski a written disciplinary warning for using the company’s e-mail system for Guild business.
- On August 14 and 18, 2000, Prozanski sent two more e-mails to employees, one reminding them to wear green for union unity and another asking for volunteers for a union parade entry.
- On August 22, 2000, Cynthia Walden, the Register-Guard’s director of human relations, sent Prozanski another disciplinary warning for using the system for 'dissemination of union information' and referenced her previous warning.
- In November 2000, Ronald Kangail, a circulation department district manager who interacted with independent contractors and subscribers, began wearing a green union armband and displaying a green union placard in his car while in the field.
- Kangail’s supervisor, Steve Hunt, told Kangail to remove the armband and placard when in public, and Kangail complied.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 5, 2000, the Eugene Newspaper Guild (union) filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging an unfair labor practice against Guard Publishing for the August 22 disciplinary warning.
- On May 14, 2001, the union filed an additional unfair labor practice charge based on supervisor Hunt’s direction to Ronald Kangail regarding the armband and placard.
- The NLRB’s General Counsel filed complaints, alleging, among other things, that Guard Publishing violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA by maintaining an overly broad no-solicitation policy, discriminatorily enforcing it against Suzi Prozanski, and maintaining an insignia policy prohibiting union insignia.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Guard Publishing did not violate the NLRA merely by maintaining its Communication Systems Policy, but did violate the NLRA by discriminatorily enforcing it for both the May and August e-mails and by maintaining and enforcing an overly broad rule against Kangail’s insignia.
- On review, the NLRB agreed with the ALJ that the Communication Systems Policy was not unlawful on its face but found discriminatory enforcement for the May 4 e-mail. However, the NLRB disagreed with the ALJ regarding the August e-mails, finding no discrimination because the company did not permit 'organizational' solicitations via e-mail. The NLRB upheld the ALJ’s conclusion regarding Kangail’s insignia.
- Both Guard Publishing Company (as petitioner) and the Eugene Newspaper Guild (as petitioner) filed petitions for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The NLRB filed a cross-application for enforcement of its order to the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by discriminatorily enforcing its e-mail policy against union-related communications while permitting other non-work-related messages, or by prohibiting employees from displaying union insignia without demonstrating special circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Circuit Judge Garland
Yes, an employer violates the NLRA by discriminatorily enforcing its e-mail policy against union-related communications while permitting other non-work-related messages, and by prohibiting employees from displaying union insignia without demonstrating special circumstances. The court found substantial evidence to support the NLRB’s determination that disciplining Prozanski for her May 4 e-mail was unlawfully discriminatory. The CSP prohibited only 'non-job-related solicitations,' and the May 4 e-mail was not a solicitation; it merely clarified facts. Since the company permitted other non-solicitational, non-work-related e-mails, disciplining Prozanski for a union-related e-mail that was not a solicitation constituted discriminatory enforcement along Section 7 lines. However, the court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s determination that the Register-Guard acted lawfully in disciplining Prozanski for the August e-mails. While these e-mails were solicitations, the company tolerated other personal solicitations (e.g., sports tickets). The Board's reasoning that the company distinguished between solicitations for individuals versus organizations was a 'post hoc invention,' as neither the company's written policy nor its disciplinary warnings articulated such a distinction. The August warning merely referred to 'union/personal business,' and the only e-mails ever disciplined were union-related. Thus, the Board’s conclusion that Prozanski was disciplined for a reason other than union activity was unsupported. The court also upheld the Board’s determination that the company committed an unfair labor practice by directing Kangail to stop displaying union insignia. The right to wear union insignia is generally protected by NLRA Section 7, absent 'special circumstances,' and the employer bears the burden of proof. The company’s claim that Kangail’s interaction with the public constituted a special circumstance was contrary to NLRB precedent, which holds that 'customer exposure to union insignia alone is not a special circumstance.' The company's vague, inconsistently enforced unwritten policy and its unsupported claims about public image failed to meet the 'special circumstances' burden.
Dissenting - NLRB Members Liebman and Walsh (at NLRB level)
As noted by the D.C. Circuit in a footnote, NLRB Members Liebman and Walsh dissented in part. They would have found that banning all non-work-related 'solicitations' is presumptively unlawful absent special circumstances. Furthermore, they believed that even if such a ban were permissible, the Register-Guard enforced the CSP in a discriminatory manner regarding the August e-mails, similar to the May e-mail, due to the tolerance of other non-work related messages.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits on an employer's ability to regulate employee communications and displays of union support under the NLRA. It reinforces that facially neutral policies must be applied consistently and without discrimination against Section 7 activities, even when they involve employer-provided communication systems like e-mail. The D.C. Circuit's rejection of the company's 'post hoc' justification for disciplining Prozanski for the August e-mails serves as a warning against creating new rationales for adverse actions during litigation. Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes the high burden employers face in proving 'special circumstances' to restrict union insignia, especially for employees whose roles do not directly threaten the employer's core business functions or journalistic integrity, making it harder to curb union visibility.
