United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018-12-18
29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
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; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 17
| Case | Covered employer | Covered employee and applicable retained status | Section 7 protected rights | Interference, restraint or coercion | Noncoercive expression under §8(c) | Narrow insignia-restriction justification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 17
| Case | Domination, interference or support of a labor organization | Working-hours conference proviso | Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance | Employment discrimination | Union-related discriminatory motivation | Same action absent unlawful motive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–17 of 17
| Case | Conditional union-security proviso | Filed charges or given testimony | Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation | Employees collective-bargaining representative | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count: § 8(a)(1) exclusion from public right-of-way; subject: party=ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count=§ 8(a)(1) exclusion from public right-of-way 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. | manager demands that non-employee union leafleters leave the public shoulder of the road, over which the employer had no right to exclude | Cunningham asked them to leave, and Valentin (the union field coordinator) said that they had a right to be there.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [6082:6196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.Acting based on this mistaken belief, Cunningham called the police, told them that the union representatives were trespassing, and demanded that they be arrested.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [6674:6836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa."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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [20215:20427] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [23229:23406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [40771:41151] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa. |
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count: § 8(a)(1) summoning police; subject: party=ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count=§ 8(a)(1) summoning police 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). | employer threatens to call and calls the police on leafleters who keep stepping from the public shoulder onto its driveway; reasonable-concern rule | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [27577:27769] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa."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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [28475:28648] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [30340:30498] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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 arrivedSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [15798:16053] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [24142:24388] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [21497:21748] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [35016:35366] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa. |