ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT

8th Cir. | 1982-03-15
No. 81-1983
Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.
673 F.2d 228 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that ABF's overly broad rules prohibiting employee solicitation and literature distribution interfered with employee rights under the NLRA, and ABF failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying these prohibitions.


Facts & Procedural History

ABF enforced rules prohibiting employees from soliciting support or distributing literature on company premises and from posting campaign materials on…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

An intra-union election contest arose in 1980 among employees at ABF’s trucking terminal in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. ABF adopted and enforced rules that prohibited employees from soliciting support or distributing literature at any time on company premises and from posting campaign-related materials on a previously available bulletin board. Upon proper complaint, the NLRB found that ABF’s policies were over ly broad and resulted in undue interference with employee rights under Section 7 of the NLRA. We enforce the Board’s order for relief in this matter. ABF contends that its prohibitions were justified by the need to maintain order and to avoid entanglement in intra-union politics. The NLRB found, however, that such claims were merely conjectural in the present case, that the proscriptions were in any event overly broad, and that alternative means of employee communication were inadequate. See 257 NLRB No. 63 (1981); see also ALJ decision, Brief for Petitioner, app. at 150-167. These determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Employee rights to communicate with respect to intra-union election contests are protected under Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. See Fruin-Colnon Corp. v. NLRB, 571 F. 2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1978). Here, ABF’s interference with the exercise of such rights was not clearly insubstantial, yet the company failed to meet its burden of showing special circumstances and a legitimate need for its interference. Cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. NLRB, 472 F. 2d 539 (8th Cir. 1973). ABF’s petition to review and set aside the NLRB’s order is therefore denied. The order of the Board shall be enforced in full.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw