Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-910-725-imagefirst.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_910/0725_01/index.html
It is also uncontested that an employer cannot restrict union access to public property or private property from which the employer does not possess the right to exclude others.
We will grant the application for enforcement and deny the cross-petition for review as to the NLRB's findings that ImageFirst violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by prohibiting union representatives from distributing pro-union literature in the public right-of-way adjacent to ImageFirst's facility and by trying to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way.
It is well established that there is no NLRA violation where an employer can show that its threat to call or its call to the police "is motivated by some reasonable concern, such as public safety or interference with legally protected interests."
In short, substantial evidence did not support the finding by the NLRB that ImageFirst's threat to call the police and the company's call to the police were motivated solely by a desire to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way.
We believe that no reasonable finder of fact could have failed to find that this concern was reasonable because, even though ImageFirst was wrong about the scope of its property rights over the shoulder, it still possessed the right to contact the police on account of the union representatives' repeated and ongoing forays onto its private property.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash3 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/910/0725-01 name Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. cite 910 F.3d 725 (2018) court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit date 2018-12-18 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_910/0725_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl sha1=c9115e74a47bbe5faf097b2e01f2b7634e123b3a chars=41452 opinion op : majority by Cowen @0..41452 controlling party p1 : ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc. count c1 : § 8(a)(1) exclusion from public right-of-way count c2 : § 8(a)(1) summoning police law 29usc158 role applied posture application for enforcement and cross-petition for review of NLRB order; granted in part as to exclusion from public right-of-way, denied in part as to police summoning result mixed element interference : satisfied [conceded] party p1 count c1 route access-and-property-restrictions pattern manager demands that non-employee union leafleters leave the public shoulder of the road, over which the employer had no right to exclude fact @6082..6196 [supports] | Cunningham asked them to leave, and Valentin (the union field coordinator) said that they had a right to be there. fact @6674..6836 [supports] | Acting based on this mistaken belief, Cunningham called the police, told them that the union representatives were trespassing, and demanded that they be arrested. fact @20215..20427 [supports] | "ImageFirst is not disputing the NLRB's limited finding that Cunningham's erroneous belief that the Company had a property interest in the shoulder of the road was unreasonable, and thus, a violation of the Act." rule @23229..23406 | It is also uncontested that an employer cannot restrict union access to public property or private property from which the employer does not possess the right to exclude others. held @40771..41151 | We will grant the application for enforcement and deny the cross-petition for review as to the NLRB's findings that ImageFirst violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by prohibiting union representatives from distributing pro-union literature in the public right-of-way adjacent to ImageFirst's facility and by trying to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way. gloss Summary enforcement of the uncontested findings: the employer did not seek review of the exclusion-from-the-shoulder violations, so the court did not itself weigh the evidence on them. element interference : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party p1 count c2 route access-and-property-restrictions pattern employer threatens to call and calls the police on leafleters who keep stepping from the public shoulder onto its driveway; reasonable-concern rule fact @27577..27769 [cuts-against] | Cunningham testified that he witnessed these individuals continue to make forays onto the company's driveway to leaflet vehicles-even after they had moved to the shoulder from the grassy area. fact @28475..28648 [cuts-against] | "Valentin admitted that on occasions, a representative may have entered the driveway but no more than 5-10 feet from the shoulder area and would immediately leave the area." fact @30340..30498 [cuts-against] | Significantly, the ALJ found that a driveway foray occurred while the police were present and that this incursion was witnessed by one of the police officers. fact @15798..16053 [supports] | Before the Respondent called the police, the union representatives had already moved to the shoulder of the highway at the Respondent's request; the union representatives were on the shoulder, not the Respondent's private property, when the police arrived rule @24142..24388 | It is well established that there is no NLRA violation where an employer can show that its threat to call or its call to the police "is motivated by some reasonable concern, such as public safety or interference with legally protected interests." held @21497..21748 | In short, substantial evidence did not support the finding by the NLRB that ImageFirst's threat to call the police and the company's call to the police were motivated solely by a desire to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way. held @35016..35366 | We believe that no reasonable finder of fact could have failed to find that this concern was reasonable because, even though ImageFirst was wrong about the scope of its property rights over the shoulder, it still possessed the right to contact the police on account of the union representatives' repeated and ongoing forays onto its private property. gloss Enforcement denied on the police-summoning finding: the Board ignored record evidence and ALJ findings of continuing driveway incursions, which compelled a finding of a subjectively held and objectively reasonable property concern (Nations Rent).