Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018-08-10
29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding hospital committed § 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; claim:
Uncertainty
Element protected-right: route: concertedness was never disputed; what was decided is whether on-premises picketing by off-duty employees keeps Section 7 protection. No route names that sub-question; concerted-activity (menu: "peaceful picketing") is the nearest.
Element protected-right: basis: the Board "assume[d] arguendo" that holding the signs was picketing; the protection ruling itself is a deferential statutory interpretation, hence [law].
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018 (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Capital Medical Center; count: § 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing; subject: party=Capital Medical Center; count=§ 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the hospital did not rebut the hospital-tailored Republic Aviation presumption; the restriction therefore violated § 8(a)(1). | hospital permits leafleting at the entrance but orders off-duty employees with picket signs off its property, threatens discipline and calls the police | Multiple hospital personnel told the employees that they could continue distributing leaflets but could not stand on hospital property with their picket signs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [7114:7273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.Capital's counsel then called the Union's attorney and threatened to discipline the employees or call the police.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [7680:7793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [27212:27426] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [4691:5001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [27427:27695] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7. |
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Section 7 protected rights | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Capital Medical Center; count: § 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing; subject: party=Capital Medical Center; count=§ 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing The contested question was legal: whether picketing on the employer's premises is categorically outside the Republic Aviation protection that covers leafleting. The court defers (Chevron) to the Board's reading of Section 7 that it is not. | off-duty employees' stationary, non-obstructive holding of picket signs beside a hospital's non-emergency entrance | 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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [6768:7113] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [27032:27211] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [2306:2580] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [20284:20486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7. |