Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc.

Facts

1. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied conceded

   Cunningham asked them to leave, and Valentin (the union field coordinator) said that they had a right to be there.

2. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied conceded

   Acting based on this mistaken belief, Cunningham called the police, told them that the union representatives were trespassing, and demanded that they be arrested.

3. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

   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

4. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied conceded

   "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."

5. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

   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.

6. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied conceded

   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.

7. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

   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."

8. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

   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.

9. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

   "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."

10. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

    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.

11. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion not no-evidence

    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.

12. 3 Interference, restraint or coercion satisfied conceded

    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.