Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

909 F.3d 427 (2018) Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 2018-08-10

petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding hospital committed ยง 8(a)(1) unfair labor practice by prohibiting off-duty employees from peacefully holding picket signs outside entrance; enforcement granted and petition denied (result: claimant-won)

Facts

  1. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied law
    Section 7's protections encompass the "rights to discuss organization and the terms and conditions of their employment, to criticize or complain about their employer or their conditions of employment, and to enlist the assistance of others in addressing employment matters."
  2. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied law
    Around 4:00 p.m., two to four employees took leaflets and picket signs from the sidewalk and walked onto hospital property. They stood next to a nonemergency entrance to the building while holding the signs, with some also handing out leaflets while holding the signs. The signs contained the messages "Respect Our Care" and "Fair Contract Now."
  3. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied law
    In short, the Board reasonably interpreted Section 7 in concluding that the Republic Aviation presumption could encompass not only solicitation and distribution on employer property, but also picketing.
  4. 2 Section 7 protected rights satisfied law
    Undisputed record evidence establishes that there were only two to four employees who held picket signs on the hospital's property, standing stationary by a nonemergency entrance.
  5. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied proved
    But outside of immediate patient-care areas, such as in hospital lounges and cafeterias, a prohibition on employee solicitation of union support is presumptively invalid unless the hospital can demonstrate the need for the restriction "to avoid disruption of health-care operations or disturbance of patients."
  6. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied proved
    Multiple hospital personnel told the employees that they could continue distributing leaflets but could not stand on hospital property with their picket signs.
  7. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied proved
    Capital's counsel then called the Union's attorney and threatened to discipline the employees or call the police.
  8. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied proved
    They did not chant, march, or obstruct visitors from entering or leaving the hospital, and Capital offered no evidence demonstrating that the peaceful holding of picket signs nonetheless could disrupt patient care.
  9. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied proved
    We therefore uphold the Board's finding that the picketing at issue here presented no likelihood of disruption or disturbance, and we sustain the Board's resulting conclusion that Capital violated the NLRA by attempting to stop the employees from holding picket signs.