Beth Israel Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board

Citation98 S.Ct. 2463,57 L.Ed.2d 370,437 U.S. 483
Decision Date22 June 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-152,77-152
PartiesBETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
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 th 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 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 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, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372, 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 orga- nizational and employer rights in the particular industry to which each solicitation rule applied. Pp. 505-507.

554 F.2d 477, affirmed.

Robert Chandler, Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

Norton J. Come, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Laurence Gold, Washington, D. C., for intervenor Union.

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. 93-360, 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 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 coffeeshop 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 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 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 long-standing 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 70-71.

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). 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- and coffeeshop." 223 N.L.R.B. at 1199, as modified, id., at 1193.

The Court of Appeals accepted as settled law that rules restricting employee solicitation during nonworking time, and distribution during nonworking time in nonworking areas are presumptively invalid in the absence of special circumstances to justify them, 554 F.2d 477, 480 (1977), and held that, since "[i]n ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
283 cases
  • Madsen, et al. v. Women's Hlth. Center, Inc. et al.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1994
    ...783-784, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 2598, 2604-2605, n. 12, 61 L.Ed.2d 251 (1979), quoting Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 509, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2477, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978) (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment). We hold that the limited noise restrictions imposed by the state court order bu......
  • Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 20, 1979
    ...of the Board to modify its construction of the Act in light of its cumulative experience . . . ." Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 508, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2477, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978). 10 Beth Israel related to a new law applying the labor act to non-industrial public hospitals for th......
  • Vokas Provision Co. v. N.L.R.B., s. 84-5886
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 21, 1986
    ...approval from Matter of Peyton Packing Co., 49 N.L.R.B. 828, 843-44); see also Beth Israel Hospital v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 483, 510, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 2478, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). Although the cited Supreme Court decisions did not involve the discharge of em......
  • Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1994
    ...that the government has a significant interest in protecting hospital patients from disturbance. (See Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB (1978) 437 U.S. 483, 98 S.Ct. 2463, 57 L.Ed.2d 370 [upholding restrictions on speech designed to shield patients from upsetting speech]; NLRB v. Baptist Hospita......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
10 books & journal articles
  • Employer Rules and Policies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part IV. Records, rules, and policies
    • August 9, 2017
    ...solicitation in work areas even during non-work time because of the special nature of their business); Beth Israel Hosp. v. N.L.R.B. , 437 U.S. 483, 490 (1978) (health care facility can ban employee solicitation and distribution in immediate patient care areas, such as operating rooms, pati......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...Excel Group, Inc. , 288 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002), §9:3.A Berry v. Funk , 146 F.3d 1003 (1998), §28:7.C.2.c Beth Israel Hosp. v. N.L.R.B. , 437 U.S. 483 (1978), §16:12.A.5 Beutel v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist , 916 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, writ denied), §§40:6.D.1.b, 40:6.F Bev......
  • Employer rules and policies
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part IV. Records, rules, and policies
    • May 5, 2018
    ...solicitation in work areas even during non-work time because of the special nature of their business); Beth Israel Hosp. v. N.L.R.B. , 437 U.S. 483, 490 (1978) (health care facility can ban employee solicitation and distribution in immediate patient care areas, such as operating rooms, pati......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...Excel Group, Inc. , 288 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002), §9:3.A Berry v. Funk , 146 F.3d 1003 (1998), §28:7.C.2.c Beth Israel Hosp. v. N.L.R.B. , 437 U.S. 483 (1978), §16:12.A.5 Beutel v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist , 916 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, writ denied), §§40:6.D.1.b, 40:6.F Bev......
  • 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