The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) must reconsider its newest ruling on the rights of certain employees to access private property to engage in activity on behalf of a union, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed in an August 31, 2021, decision in . If the Board changes its holding on remand, it will be the third time the policy on access to private property has changed in the last 10 years. This case comes to the NLRB at a time opportune for change.
The court recognized that rights of access to private property for engaging in union-related activities have traditionally depended on the connection of the person to the property. Traditional employees who work on the employer鈥檚 property have the greatest access rights and generally cannot be prohibited from engaging in union activity on the employer鈥檚 property during non-work time and in non-work areas of the property. On the other hand, a property owner generally may deny non-employees, such as union organizers, access to its premises.
The present case dealt with a third category: employees of a contractor who work on premises owned by a third party. Musicians represented by Local 23 were employed by the San Antonio Symphony, which had a contract to provide 22 weeks of performances at the Tobin Center, a facility owned by the Bexar Performing Arts Center Foundation. The musicians also performed for the Ballet San Antonio at the Tobin Center. To cut costs, the Ballet switched from live to recorded music, which reduced the number of paid performances for the musicians. To protest the use of recorded music, the musicians distributed leaflets at the Tobin Center criticizing the Ballet and urging patrons to insist upon live music. The Tobin Center informed the leafleteers that they were not permitted on Center property and should move to the public sidewalk. They complied, but Local 23 filed an unfair labor practice charge.
Under the Board鈥檚 policy that existed at the time the charge was filed, a third-party property owner could not deny access to contractor employees who are 鈥渞egularly employed on the property鈥 unless the property owner could establish that the activity substantially interfered with its use of the property. Applying that rule, an administrative law judge found that the musicians had a right to engage in leafleting on Tobin Center property.
In August 2019, a Trump Board reversed the judge鈥檚 ruling. The Board held that a property owner could exclude contractor employees from its property unless they work 鈥渞egularly and exclusively on the property鈥 and the property owner could not show they had 鈥渙ne or more reasonable alternative means to communicate their message.鈥 Applying its new rule, the Board found that the contractor musicians had no right of access.
Local 23 sought review in the DC Circuit. The court found the NLRB had acted arbitrarily in drafting its new rule. The terms 鈥渞egularly鈥 and 鈥渆xclusively鈥 were poorly defined 鈥 indeed, the NLRB鈥檚 examples were in conflict with the very words themselves. The Court remanded the case to the Board 鈥渢o proceed with a version of the test it announced 鈥 or develop a new test altogether.鈥
The Board鈥檚 newly constituted Democrat majority and current General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo have articulated a desire to expand access rights for unions and employees. Because the case has been remanded to a Board with a Democratic majority, the Board is likely to develop a new test that will expand the rights of employees to access private property for the purpose of engaging in union activity. Employers should stay tuned.
Editor鈥檚 Note: This article was written by , , and of the law firm Jackson Lewis P.C. Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.鈥檚 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and responds to new ways workplace law intersects business. For more information, visit .
漏2021 Jackson Lewis P.C. Reprinted with permission. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.