Trisha Shetty (Editor)

Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Dissent
  
Stevens

End date
  
1992

Full case name
  
Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Citations
  
502 U.S. 527 (more) 112 S. Ct. 841; 117 L. Ed. 2d 79; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 555; 60 U.S.L.W. 4145; 120 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,066; 139 L.R.R.M. 2225; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 743; 92 Daily Journal DAR 1235

Prior history
  
On appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Majority
  
Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter

Dissent
  
White, joined by Blackmun

Ruling court
  
Supreme Court of the United States

Similar
  
NLRB v Jones & Laughlin, Weingarten Rights, AT&T Mobility LLC v Co, Lochner v New York, Lawrence v Texas

Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), is a US labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States on union rights and private property rights. It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property, except in the case where no reasonable alternatives exist.

Contents

Background

Lechmere, Inc. owned a retail store in a shopping plaza in Newington, Connecticut, a metropolitan area near Hartford, and also was part owner of the plaza's parking lot. Employees of Lechmere, Inc. who drove to work used this lot to park their vehicles during their shifts. This parking lot was separated from a public highway by a strip of land which was almost entirely public property. Local union organizers, not employees of Lechmere, Inc., attempted to organize Lechmere employees by placing promotional handbills on the windshields of cars parked in the employee area of the lot. After this, Lechmere denied the organizers access to the lot. This act caused the organizers to instead distribute their handbills from the aforementioned strip of public land between the lot and the highway.

Local 919 of the United Food and Commercial Workers filed an unfair labor practice charge to the NLRB (the National Labor Relations Board), claiming that Lechmere had violated §7 of the NLRA (the National Labor Relations Act) by barring them access to the parking lot. The applicable language of the law cited was the guarantee of the NLRA that employees have, "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations," (§7) and that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer, "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees" in exercising their §7 rights. The NLRB affirmed the union's grievance, and the Court of Appeals enforced the NLRB's decision.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision based on three primary faults observed with the complaint:

  • The NLRA "confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers." They reasoned that the NLRA, while guaranteeing that employees would be free to organize if those so chose, the employer is not obligated to allow nonemployee union representatives access to their private property.
  • §7 of the NLRA does not apply to nonemployee union organizers except when, "the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through the usual channels." The Court reasoned it was improper to even begin a balancing test with regards to 7 and private property rights unless "reasonable access to employees is infeasible."
  • The union failed in demonstrating that there were any "unique obstacles" that prevented reasonable union access to the employees. The employees did not live in the shopping plaza, so they were not beyond the union's reach, and the Court further reasoned that the mere size of the city itself did not render the employees "inaccessible." The Court cited the fact that the union had been able to directly contact at least 20 employees regarding the organization.
  • The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Souter. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Blackmun. Justice Stevens filed a separate dissenting opinion.

    Significance

    After the decision, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the NLRB to consider whether the Lechmere Company had violated Section 8(a)(1) by directing the non-employee union organizers to leave the public grassy area. The NLRB reaffirmed its previous ruling, holding that "the Supreme Court's vindication of the [employer's] private-property rights, if anything, elevates the gravity of [the employer's] attempt to bar union access to public property."

    References

    Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB Wikipedia