NLRB v. Constellation Brands U.S. Oper
992 F.3d 642
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Constellation Brands operates Woodbridge Winery in California; cellar employees voted to unionize (Local 601) in 2015 but bargaining stalled and litigation over certification continued.
- In July–August 2016 cellar worker Manuel Chavez wrote "Cellar Lives Matter" on his safety vest and wore it at work as a pro-union message during the organizing dispute; supervisors told him to stop on August 4, 2016.
- Local 601 and the NLRB General Counsel filed charges in January 2017 alleging (1) Woodbridge unlawfully directed Chavez to remove pro‑union clothing (§ 8(a)(1)) and (2) a handbook provision limited incentive/bonus eligibility to non‑union employees.
- An Administrative Law Judge found both violations: Chavez’s slogan was protected pro‑union speech and Woodbridge failed to show the “special circumstances” needed to justify banning it; the handbook language similarly tended to interfere with Section 7 rights.
- The NLRB affirmed the ALJ; the Seventh Circuit applied the substantial‑evidence standard and enforced the Board’s order, denying Woodbridge’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woodbridge) | Defendant's Argument (NLRB/ALJ/Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directing Chavez to stop wearing a vest reading "Cellar Lives Matter" violated § 8(a)(1) | The slogan could appeal to racial prejudice, exacerbate employee dissension, and harm public image — special circumstances justify banning it | Chavez's slogan was pro‑union protected activity; no evidence of complaints, disruption, or safety/public‑image harm; employer failed to meet burden to show special circumstances | ALJ/NLRB findings upheld: message protected and employer failed to show special circumstances; ordering removal violated § 8(a)(1) |
| Whether handbook language limiting incentive eligibility to "non‑union" employees violates § 8(a)(1) | Actual practice does not exclude union employees; no adverse effect shown | The handbook language by its terms excludes union employees and reasonably tends to interfere with Section 7 rights | ALJ/NLRB findings upheld: the handbook provision unlawfully tends to interfere with union activity regardless of any claimed non‑enforcement |
| Standard of review for NLRB factual and legal conclusions | Woodbridge argued Board's conclusions were incorrect on the facts/law | NLRB relied on substantial‑evidence/deference to ALJ findings and Board precedent | Court applied substantial‑evidence review and deferred to ALJ/Board; upheld the Board's order |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandeis Mach. & Supply Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2005) (explains narrow "special circumstances" exception to banning union insignia)
- Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945) (employer action curtailing protected activity presumptively invalid)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (articulates substantial‑evidence/deference standard for reviewing agency factfinding)
- SCA Tissue N. Am. LLC v. NLRB, 371 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2004) (describes circumscribed appellate review of Board decisions adopting ALJ findings)
- Rochelle Waste Disposal, LLC v. NLRB, 673 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2012) (reiterates standards for reviewing Board orders)
- Aluminum Casting & Eng'g Co. v. NLRB, 230 F.3d 286 (7th Cir. 2000) (applies substantial‑evidence review to NLRB factual findings)
- Melville Confections, Inc. v. NLRB, 327 F.2d 690 (7th Cir. 1964) (handbook language alone can violate § 8(a)(1) even if not applied)