X-Originating-IP: [170.140.37.228] From: "Stewart Roberts" To: labor-rap@csf.colorado.edu Subject: Fwd: More on Buttons (9th Circuit) Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 18:40:10 EDT Wednesday, May 6, 1998 Here's a forwarded message I received from a harried steward in grocery on the west coast. All comments and advice will be graciously and humbly accepted. Post to me privately, or to the list. Stewart --- Regarding Albertsons: around 1988 a UFCW local in WA state provided buttons to members during contract negotiations. An Albertsons Store Director ordered employees to remove the buttons. An ALJ . . . ruling for the NLRB concluded that Albertsons policy concerning buttons was too broad because employees were prohibited from wearing buttons anywhere and anytime on the job. So the ALJ ruled against Albertsons. Awhile later another WA state local provided buttons for employees and Albertsons again ordered employees to remove them. Albertsons claimed it had narrowed its policy. The new policy allowed employees to wear buttons while they were off-duty or working in non-selling areas. The NLRB ruled that the policy violated Sec. 7 (via Sec. 8(a)) employee rights. (The first ruling did not mention this.) Albertsons appealed to the 9th Circuit Court who ruled that the NLRB had implied Albertsons could prohibit wearing buttons if they narrowed their policy so, by the concept of collateral estoppel, the NLRB could not later go back on this implication. Crazy, huh? The enforcers make a legal mistake so the employer can break the law. The 9th Circuit seemed embarrased by its ruling because it ordered that the ruling not be published and that it could not be used as a precedent in similar cases. So only Albertsons can get away with this. I want to challenge Albertsons on this at some later date because the court ruled on "buttons provided by the union." I have made a button out of paper which I think Albertsons must allow me to wear (it says "Member Local **") because it was not provided by the union. Right now tho I am involved in charges I filed due to being written up for posting labor and union information on the break room bulletin board. In my opinion (for what it is worth) the Supreme Court ruling in 1945 (Republic Aviation) gives us EMPLOYEES the right to engage in concerted activity (including communicating with one another) despite an employer's property rights unless our activity interferes with production, order, safety, or other significant business considerations. Since I had been posting on the bulletin board for 18 months (my Store Director would tear the stuff down but never threatened me with discipline) and this activity did not interfere with business I think I (and all employees in this situation) clearly have the right to post union and labor information on a company bulletin board. The supervisor of this areas NLRB office disagrees with me. The case is on hold and will be on hold for awhile. My local has filed a charge in this matter because I am a Shop Steward and that may be why I was written up plus the law requires an employer to negotiate policy work policy changes with the union before implementing them (the past practice policy was to allow postings even tho there may be a written policy prohibiting bulletin board postings by employees). Albertsons did not contact the union or negotiate. I have filed previous NLRB charges against Albertsons. In 1996 I took a petition around to the breakrooms of 4 other Albertsons stores in the area. The petition concerned helping senior employees find more hours in other departments or other stores. The Store Directors at the stores I visited gave me permission to sit in the breakroom and show the petition to employees. I stayed about 2 hours at each store and left of my own accord. Then I was told that I could not do this anymore. I filed charges. The NLRB staff in this area says an employee can visit any of their employers facilities and engage in concerted activity with other employees in outside non-work areas. I think the law and Board rulings imply we also have access to inside non-work areas so long as we do not interefere with business. The NLRB staff in this area would not bring my charge to the Board because they said Albertsons policy which prevented me from inside access was presumptively valid. I appealed to the NLRB General Counsel in Washington D.C. who agreed with the decision. I think it was bogus. Inside access is a significant issue. I don't know why the decision was made but I suspect some politics and mostly that the Board has low funding and staff is swamped so places a low priority on charges filed by individuals and a much higher priority on charges filed by unions. ### ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com