Union Pamphlets Denied 'Right of Way' From Third Circuit

July 2, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A federal appeals court ruling proved to be a mixed bag for a Pennsylvania snack distribution company, with judges tossing two findings of unfair labor practices - but upholding a charge of illegal surveillance of union activity.

However, the bottom line of the decision of the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals was that companies couldn’t prohibit union organizers from handing out literature in the employer’s driveway unless local government officials have specifically outlawed it.

The decision threw out two National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) orders that Snyder’s had committed unfair labor practices in its dealings with the United Food and Commercials Workers Union, according to a report in The Legal Intelligencer.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Judges said Snyder’s crossed the line when it surveilled union representatives in an effort to scare away workers from taking the union literature being offered.

Case Background

According to court papers, five union representatives arrived at the entrance to Snyder’s York, Pennsylvania facilities on October 1, 1998, to distribute union handbills to workers as they left work during a shift change.

When company officials learned they were in Synder’s driveway, company officials told them they were trespassing and ordered them to leave. But the union workers insisted they had a legal right to be there since the driveway was a right-of-way.

Company officials responded by calling the police who sided with the union.

The NLRB later found that Snyder’s had committed three unfair labor practices:

  • prohibiting union workers from distributing literature in a public right-of-way
  • calling the police in an attempt to have the union workers removed for trespassing
  • engaging in unlawful surveillance by calling out individual workers’ names as they approached the union reps.

On appeal, Snyder’s argued that all of its conduct was legal.

Pennsylvania law

The NLRB argued that the case turned on a question of Pennsylvania law, which gives the union organizers the right to distribute handbills on a public right-of-way unless the local municipality has not authorized it.

Snyder’s failed to prove its case, the NLRB argued, since it had no proof that Penn Township did not allow handbilling in its public rights-of-way.

The court looked to Penn Township’s ordinances and found there was no express authorization for handbilling on rights-of-way.

“We conclude that under Pennsylvania law, as represented to us by the parties, Snyder’s had the right to exclude organizers from the right-of-way on its property,” judges wrote.

As a result, the judges said, the two NLRB orders that held Snyder’s liable for attempting to exclude the organizers and for calling the police on them cannot be enforced.

But the court found that the NLRB was on firmer ground with its third order that said Snyder’s had engaged in illegal surveillance by calling out the names of its workers as they neared the union organizers.

The case is Snyder’s of Hanover Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board.

SURVEY SAYS: Bill Details

June 14, 2001 - Well, the details of a Patients' Bill of Rights may still remain to be worked out, but there isn't much doubt about the result, according to survey respondents. Nearly 60% (58%) expect employers to raise premiums -- as a result of insurance companies raising costs -- as a result of -- well, you get the point. Roughly a third (31%) expect coverage to be reduced in amount or scope as a result, while about 11% expect employers to do nothing, or be able to do nothing in the current labor environment..

There was also little doubt in respondent minds as to the ultimate beneficiary ? nearly half (48.9%) named lawyers. A distant second, with 27%, were politicians, while insurance companies were deemed the most likely beneficiary by 12%. Doctors were cited by 7%, employers by 2% – and just 4% said patients would be the most likely beneficiaries.

Verbatims from the Survey Comments:

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

In the short term, health care providers and trial attorneys benefit; in the long term, everyone loses except the federal government, which will take over when health care costs skyrocket “out of control.”

“Any form of Patients Bill of Rights will have a “patient price tag”…large and mid-sized employers will likely pass along the increased cost of the bill to employees; small employers may be forced to cut back/eliminate coverage due to the increased cost or the perception/potential of liability from legal actions against them. Once again, the only beneficiary of this “mandate legislation” will be the lawyers!”

“One way or the other any costs have to be passed on to the employees. After all even employer paid expenses are picked up by employees in the way of a lower salary as the total cost of hiring for a position must be considered or the employer is out of business. For some reason many politicians as well as the general public seem to think just having the word Inc. attached to your company name means there is an unlimited supply of cash somewhere.”

“It is becoming too difficult for the average employer to keep up with the demands of the more recent legislation like HIPAA, and the significantly increased potential for litigation from employees and patients will prove to be too much pressure. Businesses provide health care to employees as a benefit and for recruiting/retention – it is not their sole reason for being in the business world. “

And this week’s favorite: ” I’m only 30. I’m too young to be so cynical.”

Thanks to EVERYONE who participated in our survey!

«