437 U.S. 483 (1978), 77-152, Beth Israel Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board

Docket NºNo. 77-152
Citation437 U.S. 483, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 57 L.Ed.2d 370
Party NameBeth Israel Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board
Case DateJune 22, 1978
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 483

437 U.S. 483 (1978)

98 S.Ct. 2463, 57 L.Ed.2d 370

Beth Israel Hospital

v.

National Labor Relations Board

No. 77-152

United States Supreme Court

June 22, 1978

Argued April 24 1978

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner nonprofit hospital had a written rule that prohibited employees from soliciting and distributing literature except in certain employee locker rooms and certain adjacent restrooms. The cafeteria was the common gathering place of employees, and had been used by petitioner or with its approval for solicitation and distribution of literature to employees for various nonunion purposes. After an employee had made general distribution in the cafeteria to other employees of a union newsletter and had been warned that she had violated the hospital's rule, and would be dismissed if she did so again, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), following a charge by the union, issued an unfair labor practice complaint against petitioner. The NLRB applied to petitioner the rule that it had adopted in St. John's Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc., 222 N.L.R.B. 1150, that, since "the primary function of a hospital is patient care," and "a tranquil atmosphere is essential to the carrying out of that function," a hospital may be warranted in imposing more stringent restrictions on employee solicitation and distribution in immediate patient care areas than are generally permitted other employers, but the balance [98 S.Ct. 2465] should be struck against such restrictions in other areas such as lounges and cafeterias, absent a showing of disruption to patients. The NLRB held that petitioner's ban violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), which, by amendments to the Act in 1974, was made applicable to employees of nonprofit health care institutions, and that the disciplining of employees for not observing the prohibition violated § 8(a)(3). The NLRB ordered petitioner to cease and desist from interfering with "concerted union activities" and employees' § 7 rights, and to rescind its written rule. The Court of Appeals accepted as settled law that restrictions on employee solicitation and distribution during nonworking hours are presumptively invalid absent special circumstances, and that, here, petitioner had not satisfied its burden of justifying the ban on protected activities in the eating areas. While narrowing the scope of the remedies ordered by the NLRB, the court upheld the NLRB's action rescinding that part of petitioner's rule applicable to those areas.

Held: The Court of Appeals

Page 484

did not err in enforcing the NLRB's order to petitioner to rescind its rule as applied to the hospital's eating facilities. Pp. 491-508.

(a) Freedom of employees effectively to communicate with one another regarding self-organization on the jobsite is essential to their right to self-organize and to bargain collectively established by § 7 of the Act, Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, and, in the light of its experience, the NLRB is free to adopt a rule that, absent special circumstances, an employer's restriction on employee solicitation during nonworking time and distribution during such time in nonworking areas is presumptively an unreasonable interference with § 7 rights constituting an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1), without the necessity of proving the underlying generic facts that persuaded it to reach that conclusion. Pp. 491-493.

(b) Nothing in the legislative history of the 1974 amendments shows a congressional policy inconsistent with the NLRB's approach to enforcement of § 7 organizational rights in the hospital context. Pp. 496-500.

(c) The NLRB, by those amendments, is responsible for administering the federal national labor relations policy in the health care industry. Though the NLRB is no more an expert in that industry than it is in other enterprises within its jurisdiction, it is the NLRB's function to strike the balance in all areas within its jurisdiction between conflicting legitimate interests in order to effectuate the national labor policy. Hence, petitioner's argument that the NLRB lacks expertise to make judgments involving hospitals, and that the principle of limited judicial review should not apply in that area, is without merit. Pp. 500-501.

(d) The NLRB's conclusion that "the possibility of any disruption in patient care resulting from solicitation or distribution of literature is remote" as applied to petitioner's cafeteria is rational and fully supported by the record, as indicated by much cogent evidence, including the facts that only 1.56% of the cafeteria's patrons are patients and that petitioner itself permitted nonunion solicitation and distribution in the cafeteria. Moreover, petitioner introduced no evidence of untoward effects on patients during the period when the rules permitted limited union solicitation in the cafeteria. Pp. 501-505.

(e) Contrary to petitioner's argument, it is not irrational for the NLRB to uphold, as it has, a ban against solicitation in the dining area of a public restaurant, where such solicitation tends to upset patrons, while prohibiting a ban on such activity in a hospital cafeteria like petitioner's, 77% of whose patrons are employees, absent evidence that nonemployee patrons would be upset. That argument fails to consider that the NLRB's position struck the appropriate balance between organizational

Page 485

and employer rights in the particular industry to which each solicitation rule applied. Pp. 505-507.

554 F.2d 477, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 508, and POWELL, J., post, p. 509, filed opinions concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J. and REHNQUIST, J., joined.

BRENNAN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 to 168, was further amended in 1974 to extend its coverage and protection to employees of nonprofit health care institutions.1 Act of July 26, 1974, Pub.L. No. 9360, 88 Stat. 395. Petitioner is a Boston nonprofit hospital whose employees are covered by the amended Act. This case presents the question whether the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in ordering

Page 486

enforcement of that part of an order of the National Labor Relations Board based on the Board's finding that petitioner, in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), interfered with its employees' rights guaranteed by § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, by issuing and enforcing a rule that prohibits employees from soliciting union support and distributing union literature during nonworking time in the hospital cafeteria and coffee shop used primarily by employees, but also used by patients and visitors.

In 1970, prior to the advent of any union organizational activity at the hospital, petitioner announced a rule barring solicitation and distribution of literature in any area to which patients or visitors have access. Petitioner permitted these activities only in certain employee locker rooms and certain adjacent restrooms. App. 59. In July, 1974, however, as a result of a proceeding instituted against it before the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, petitioner announced a rule permitting solicitation in the cafeteria on a one-to-one basis while maintaining the total ban on distribution. Id. at 67. On March 6, 1975, shortly after the NLRB acquired jurisdiction, petitioner reinstated its previous rule limiting employee solicitation and distribution to certain employee locker rooms and restrooms. Id. at 70.2 That rule provides:

There is to be no soliciting of the general public (patients, visitors) on Hospital property. Soliciting and the distribution of literature to B.I. employees may be done by other B.I. employees when neither individual is on his or her working time, in employee-only areas -- employee locker rooms and certain adjacent rest rooms. Elsewhere within the Hospital, including patient care and

Page 487

all other work areas, and areas open to the public such as lobbies, cafeteria and coffee shop, corridors, elevators, gift shop, etc., there is to be no solicitation nor distribution of literature.

Solicitation or distribution of literature on Hospital property by non-employees is expressly prohibited at all times.

Consistent with our longstanding practices, the annual appeal campaigns of the United Fund and of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies for voluntary charitable gifts will continue to be carried out by the Hospital.

Id. at 771.

Upon a charge filed by the union,3 the Board issued a complaint, and the matter was tried before an Administrative Law Judge. The Board affirmed the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner's issuance and maintenance of the rules violated § 8(a)(1) and the disciplining of an employee for an infraction of them violated § 8(a)(3). [98 S.Ct. 2467] 223 N.L.R.B. 1193 (1976). The Administrative Law Judge found that there were few places in which employees' § 7 rights effectively could be exercised, that petitioner had not offered any convincing evidence that the rule was necessary to prevent disruptions in patient care, and that, on balance, the rule was an unjustified infringement of § 7 rights. See 223 N.L.R.B. at 1198. The Board issued an order, paragraph 1 of which broadly required petitioner to cease and desist from interfering with "concerted union activities" and "exercise of [employees'] rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act," and paragraph 2(b) of which required petitioner to "[r]escind its written rule prohibiting distribution of union literature and union solicitation in its cafeteria

Page 488

and coffee shop." 223 N.L.R.B. at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
156 practice notes
  • Hale Nani Rehab. & Nursing Center, (1998)
    • United States
    • 26 August 1998
    ...officer are inapplicable because they do not involve restrictions only on distributions in working areas. Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 486 (1978), involved restrictions on solicitations and distributions in a hospital cafeteria and coffeeshop. NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., ......
  • The changing guard of patent law: Chevron deference for the PTO.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 6, May 2013
    • 1 May 2013
    ...immediately bind the parties. See, e.g., NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786-87 (1990); Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 500 (1978); NLRB v. Hearst Publ'ns, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131 (1944); Merrill & Hickman, supra note 31, at 892 ("Thus, it appears t......
  • Modern discrimination theory and the National Labor Relations Act.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 39 Nbr. 1, October 1997
    • 1 October 1997
    ...required showing. See id. [sections] 2000e-2(k). (107.) See supra notes 34-49 and accompanying text. (108.) See Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 494-95 (1978). (109.) See 29 U.S.C. [sections] 157 (1994). (110.) See id.; NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 113 (1956). (11......
  • Crossed wires: outdated perceptions of electronic communications in the NLRB'S Purple Communications decision.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 94 Nbr. 2, February 2017
    • 1 February 2017
    ...com/2014enterprise-trends-byod-pain-html5-apps-hybrid-cloud-sdx-7000021705). (132.) Id. at 8 (quoting Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 505 (1978)). (133.) Id. (quoting Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 521,523 (1976)). (134.) Id. (135.) Id. at 8-9. (136.) Id. at 9. The Board noted that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
144 cases
  • Hale Nani Rehab. & Nursing Center, (1998)
    • United States
    • 26 August 1998
    ...officer are inapplicable because they do not involve restrictions only on distributions in working areas. Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 486 (1978), involved restrictions on solicitations and distributions in a hospital cafeteria and coffeeshop. NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., ......
  • Nova Southeastern University, (2011)
    • United States
    • 26 August 2011
    ...the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self organization at the jobsite.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 491, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 57 L.Ed 2d 370 (1978) [emphasis added] [footnote omitted]. And the work-place “is a particularly appropriate place for the......
  • Nova Southeastern University, (2009)
    • United States
    • 16 March 2009
    ...the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self organization at the jobsite.' Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 491, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2469, 57 L.Ed 2d 370 (1978) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). And the workplace "is a particularly appropriate place for the ......
  • Purple Communications, Inc., (2014)
    • United States
    • 11 December 2014
    ...“necessarily encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self-organization at the jobsite.” Beth Israel, 437 U.S. at 491–492. The workplace is “a particularly appropriate place for [employees to exercise their Section 7 rights], because it is the one place wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Deconstructing 'just and proper': arguments in favor of adopting the 'remedial purpose' approach to section 10(j) labor injunctions.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 110 Nbr. 1, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    ...little insight. (38.) [section] 160(e). (39.) [section] 160(f). (40.) [section] 160(e)-(f), (j). (41.) See, e.g., Beth Isr. Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 501 (1978) ("The judicial role [under section 10(e)] is narrow: The rule which the Board adopts is judicially reviewable for consiste......
  • Modern discrimination theory and the National Labor Relations Act.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 39 Nbr. 1, October 1997
    • 1 October 1997
    ...required showing. See id. [sections] 2000e-2(k). (107.) See supra notes 34-49 and accompanying text. (108.) See Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 494-95 (1978). (109.) See 29 U.S.C. [sections] 157 (1994). (110.) See id.; NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 113 (1956). (11......
  • Are trojan horse union organizers 'employees?': a new look at deference to the NLRB's interpretation of NLRA section 2(3).
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 93 Nbr. 4, February - February 1995
    • 1 February 1995
    ...373 U.S. 221, 236 (1963) (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483,501 (1978) ("[In many ... contexts of labor policy, `[t]he ultimate problem is the balancing of the conflicting legitimate interests. The......
  • The changing guard of patent law: Chevron deference for the PTO.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 6, May 2013
    • 1 May 2013
    ...immediately bind the parties. See, e.g., NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786-87 (1990); Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 500 (1978); NLRB v. Hearst Publ'ns, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 131 (1944); Merrill & Hickman, supra note 31, at 892 ("Thus, it appears t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT