Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 847
11th Cir.2016Background
- MBUSI maintained a written rule: "prohibits solicitation and/or distribution of non-work related materials by Team Members during work time or in working areas." The UAW campaigned at MBUSI in 2012–2013.
- Employee David Gilbert distributed pro‑union flyers in a walled team center just before his shift while other employees were off‑duty; supervisors told him distribution was not allowed in the team center while the production line was moving.
- Gilbert and others later distributed handbills in the plant atrium during shift change; HR initially stopped them but then purportedly allowed future distribution.
- The ALJ found MBUSI violated Section 8 by: (a) maintaining an overly broad solicitation/distribution rule; (b) prohibiting distribution in a mixed‑use team center; and (c) prohibiting distribution in a mixed‑use atrium. ALJ recommended rescission and cease‑and‑desist relief.
- The NLRB panel affirmed (with a slight remedy modification). MBUSI petitioned for review; the General Counsel cross‑petitioned for enforcement. The Court enforced in part, denied enforcement in part, and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MBUSI's written solicitation/distribution rule was unlawfully overbroad | Rule is ambiguous but MBUSI rebutted the presumption by communicating and applying it to permit nonworking‑time solicitation | Rule is lawful because MBUSI showed clarification/non‑enforcement that conveyed permission for protected activity | Court: rule was presumptively unlawful and MBUSI failed to rebut; enforcement of Board order as to the rule affirmed |
| Whether the team center where Gilbert distributed literature is a mixed‑use area (permanent mixed‑use) | MBUSI: team centers are work areas (or, if mixed, only during discrete nonwork times MBUSI already permits) | GC/UAW: team centers are mixed‑use so distribution during nonworking time must be permitted | Court: ALJ/Board erred to the extent they found team centers to be permanent mixed‑use without analyzing volume/type/duration; enforcement as written denied and remanded |
| Whether special circumstances justify prohibiting distribution in team centers when line is moving (scope of remedy) | MBUSI: special circumstances (just‑in‑time production, proximity to logistics aisle, safety) justify restrictions; remedy should be limited | GC/UAW: no special circumstances shown for the cited team center; remedy may cover mixed‑use areas | Court: ALJ considered special circumstances only for Gilbert’s team center and declined to assess other centers; remedy that applies to all 19 centers exceeded factual record — remand for narrower remedy or additional factfinding |
| Whether MBUSI waived challenge to NLRB’s mixed‑use finding for the atrium | MBUSI: interference was de minimis and remedied quickly; contested mixed‑use status too late | NLRB: MBUSI abandoned mixed‑use argument before the Board; issue waived | Court: MBUSI waived the mixed‑use challenge before the Board; enforced the Board’s finding re: the atrium |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (Sup. Ct. 1945) (agencies may develop standards to apply broad statutory prohibitions to varied facts)
- Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (Board may fashion presumptions and rules based on experience)
- First Nat. Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (court may not affirm agency on grounds the agency did not rely upon)
- NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (Sup. Ct. 1956) (standard of review—legal questions de novo; findings of fact substantial evidence)
- Transcon Lines v. NLRB, 599 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1979) (drivers’ room found mixed‑use; remedy limited to factual scope)
- United Parcel Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 228 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2000) (mixed‑use analysis: frequency, duration, and primary use control classification)
- DHL Express, Inc. v. NLRB, 813 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (upheld mixed‑use finding where little or incidental work occurred; ALJ must consider type, duration, frequency of activities)