04/16/2025: ALJ Case With Six Illegal Work Rules
Region orders election for Hearst Media newspapers in Connecticut.
Intertape Polymer Group, JD-33-25, 07-CA-291784 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves a decision by Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan concerning alleged labor violations by Intertape Polymer Corp. against Matthew Rose, the president of UAW Local 1149, at the company's Marysville, Michigan facility.
The case originated when Rose was disciplined in January and March 2022, and subsequently discharged on March 3, 2022. The case was initially tried in December 2022, but the judge deferred the discipline and discharge allegations to arbitration. In August 2024, the NLRB reversed this deferral and remanded the case.
The Board had already found that Intertape's Work Rule 7, which prohibited unauthorized posting and was cited in Rose's discharge, was unlawfully overbroad and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board also remanded several other work rules for evaluation under the Stericycle standard rather than the Boeing standard.
The key events leading to Rose's discipline and discharge began in December 2021 when a scheduling error occurred. Rose, acting as union president, initially secured agreement from a production manager that employees wouldn't need to work a particular shift due to the error. However, Intertape's new Director of Labor Relations, Richard Harter, countermanded this decision. Rose challenged Harter's authority and posted a grievance on a union bulletin board.
Intertape removed the posted grievance and subsequently issued Rose a "verbal" warning in January 2022, a written warning in March 2022, and terminated him on March 3, 2022, citing violations of Work Rules 7 and 13, insubordination, and dishonesty during an investigation.
The ALJ found the following work rules unlawful:
Work Rule 7: "Distributing literature or printed matter of any kind on Company premises, or the posting or removal of notices, signs or writing of any form anywhere on Company premises unless specifically authorized to do so by the Company."
Work Rule 9: "Loitering on Company property."
Work Rule 11: "Using company telephones for personal calls without the permission of supervision."
Work Rule 19: "Bringing cameras or photographic equipment (including cell phones) without the company's authorization."
Work Rule 20: "Employees will not be allowed on company property or in the plant on shifts other than their shift unless authorized."
Work Rule 21: "Indirect Insubordination: challenge and abuse of directions given by supervision or management."
In his analysis, Judge Amchan found:
These work rules were unlawfully overbroad, giving the company unfettered discretion that could restrict employees' Section 7 rights.
Rose's posting of union materials on bulletin boards constituted protected union activity, particularly given that Intertape had previously allowed various postings without objection.
Intertape violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by disciplining and discharging Rose under the unlawful Rule 7.
Intertape failed to establish a defense under Continental Group, as Rose's conduct did not interfere with work operations.
Rose's dishonesty during the investigation could not justify his discharge because the investigation itself concerned protected activity.
Judge Amchan ordered Intertape to rescind the unlawful work rules, reinstate Rose with full backpay and benefits, remove all references to the unlawful discipline from his file, and post appropriate notices.
Significant Cases Cited
Continental Group, Inc., 357 NLRB 409 (2011): Established that framework for analyzing employer’s use of unlawful work rules to discipline unprotected activity.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Set forth the framework for analyzing discrimination cases under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402 (1982): Established that when an employer permits employees to use bulletin boards, it cannot remove notices that meet its rules but which it finds distasteful.
Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023): Provided the standard for evaluating whether a work rule has a coercive meaning that would reasonably interfere with Section 7 rights.
Boeing, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017): Established categories for evaluating work rules based on their potential impact on NLRA rights.
Hearst Media Services Connecticut, LLC D/B/a Hearst Connecticut Media Group, 01-RC-347857 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves a representation petition filed by The NewsGuild-CWA seeking to represent approximately 110 editorial employees working at Hearst Connecticut Media Group's five locations in Connecticut (Meriden, Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk, and Stamford).
The Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election finding that the petitioned-for statewide unit of editorial employees is appropriate for collective bargaining. The Employer had argued that the statewide unit lacked an internal community of interest and that five separate location-based units would be more appropriate, but failed to timely serve its Statement of Position, resulting in preclusion of these arguments under the Board's rules.
Despite the procedural ruling, the Regional Director examined the appropriateness of the petitioned-for unit on its merits. The Director found that the editorial employees across all five locations share similar skills, duties, and working conditions. The employees include reporters, editors, producers, photographers, and graphic designers who all work under common management and labor policies, with a single employee handbook and standards policy applying company-wide.
The decision emphasized the high degree of functional integration in the Employer's operations. Editorial employees frequently collaborate across locations, with some teams being entirely statewide rather than location-specific. The company's website, CT Insider, publishes content from all locations, and stories often appear in multiple publications. Reporters and photographers regularly work on stories that appear across all of the Employer's publications.
The Director applied the traditional multi-facility unit factors and found most weighed in favor of a statewide unit:
Employees' skills, duties, and working conditions are virtually identical across locations
Business operations show complete functional integration
Regular employee interchange occurs between locations and teams
The geographic proximity factor was found to weigh slightly in favor of a statewide unit despite distances of up to 60 miles between locations
Centralized management structure with all employees ultimately reporting to one Editor-in-Chief
The Director directed a mail ballot election for the unit of all full-time and regular part-time editorial employees employed at or out of the Employer's Connecticut facilities, excluding managers, guards, and supervisors. The eligibility of fourteen employees in editorial positions with potential supervisory authority was deferred until after the election, with those employees permitted to vote subject to challenge.
Significant Cases Cited
Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 723 (1996): Established that a unit sought need only be an appropriate unit, not the ultimate or most appropriate unit.
WideOpenWest Illinois, LLC, 371 NLRB No. 107 (2022): Defined functional integration as existing when "employees must work together and depend on one another to accomplish their tasks."
Trane, 339 NLRB 866 (2003): Held that geographic distance is less of a factor when there is evidence of regular interchange between locations and centralized control.
Capital Coors Co., 309 NLRB 322 (1992): Approved multi-location units despite significant distances (90 miles) between facilities.
Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc., 340 NLRB 1205 (2003): Approved multi-location unit where outlying facilities were as far as 70 miles from the main facility.