Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2021
• Docket Number: Nos. 19-1321 & 19-1549,s. 19-1321 & 19-1549
• Citation: 992 F.3d 642
• Parties: CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S. OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED, doing business as Woodbridge Winery, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

992 F.3d 642

CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S. OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED, doing business as Woodbridge Winery, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent,

v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.

Nos. 19-1321 & 19-1549

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued January 13, 2021

Decided March 30, 2021

John D. Dalton, Attorney, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck LLP, Chicago, IL, Michael Kaufman, Taylor Michelle Ferris, Attorneys, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, Woodbury, NY, Karol Corbin Walker, Esq., Attorney, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, Hackensack, NJ, for Petitioner.

David Habenstreit, Kira D. Vol, Eric Weitz, Attorneys, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before Flaum, Brennan, and Scudder, Circuit Judges.

Scudder, Circuit Judge.

In early 2017 a union alleged that Woodbridge Winery violated the National Labor Relations Act by directing an employee to remove pro-union clothing and maintaining a policy that limited bonus eligibility to non-union employees. An administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board agreed that Woodbridge engaged in unfair labor practices. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we deny Woodbridge's petition for review and enforce the Board's order.

I

A

Constellation Brands owns and operates Woodbridge Winery in Acampo, California. There, in California's Central Valley, employees in Woodbridge's so-called cellar department work to turn grapes into wine before the bottling process begins. In 2015 Woodbridge's cellar department employees decided to unionize, held an election, and certified the Local 601 chapter of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as their collective bargaining representative. From there, however, the collective bargaining process stalled. Woodbridge refused to engage with the union and challenged the certification before the National Labor Relations Board. Although the Board ordered Woodbridge to bargain with the union, the winery successfully challenged the order on appeal, and the case is now back pending and unresolved before the Board. See Constellation Brands, U.S. Operations, Inc. v. NLRB , 842 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 2016).

Tensions over the unionization and the collective bargaining impasse remained high within Woodbridge in the summer of 2016. It was then that Manuel Chavez, a pro-union advocate who worked in Woodbridge's cellar department, decided to express his support for the union cause by writing "Cellar Lives Matter" with a marker on the back of his safety vest. Chavez explained that he devised the slogan because he thought it was both true and catchy—drawing upon the well-recognized Black Lives Matter movement. In his own words, Chavez explained that "[a]s a department and as individuals we put—we do everything we have to do to make sure that wine is ready for bottle ready. So therefore, Cellar Lives Matter."

Chavez wore the vest each day from July 20 to August 4, 2016. During that period, no employee complained to him about the Cellar Lives Matter slogan, and indeed, Chavez reported that many of his co-workers responded positively. On August 4, however, Woodbridge's General Manager informed Chavez that "numerous people" found the slogan offensive in the "current political situation" and directed him to stop wearing the vest. For his part, Chavez responded by explaining that the slogan was in no way racially motivated, and instead was all and only about supporting the union's position in the ongoing collective bargaining dispute. Chavez asked if he could write a different pro-union message on his vest, but his supervisors refused. He then stopped wearing the vest.

B

In January 2017 the Local 601 Union filed charges against Woodbridge, and, separately, the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel issued a consolidated unfair labor practices complaint against the winery. The union alleged that Woodbridge violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by directing Chavez to stop wearing clothing bearing any pro-union message. The Local 601 also raised a second charge, altogether unrelated to Chavez and his workplace clothing, that Woodbridge violated the Act by maintaining a policy in its employee handbook that limited eligibility for a bonus program to "non-union full time and regular part-time employees of the Company."

An administrative law judge held a three-day hearing and issued an order finding that Woodbridge had violated the Act on both fronts. As for the Cellar Lives Matter slogan, the ALJ found that Woodbridge could not justify preventing Chavez from engaging in pro-union speech in the workplace. The record, the ALJ observed, contained no evidence that Chavez intended to denigrate the Black Lives Matter movement, finding instead that it was Woodbridge's supervisors who insinuated that "any slogan associated with the BLM movement was too controversial and inflammatory." Not a single rank-and-file employee, the ALJ continued, complained about the slogan. Nor did Woodbridge show that the slogan caused disruption to Woodbridge's operations or presented any risk to anyone's safety. In these circumstances, the ALJ concluded, Woodbridge's suppression of Chavez's pro-union speech violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The ALJ then turned to the bonus-eligibility policy in Woodbridge's employee handbook. The ALJ found that the policy, by its terms, limited participation in Woodbridge's bonus plan to non-union employees, in violation of Board precedent interpreting section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The National Labor Relations Board affirmed. Woodbridge then sought our review of the Board's order, and the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(f) (authorizing judicial review of a Board order granting or denying relief in any circuit court in which the unfair labor practice has allegedly occurred or where the appealing party resides or transacts business).

II

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. § 157. The Act protects this right in many ways, including in section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an employer from acting "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [section 7]." Id. § 158(a)(1). To establish a violation of section 8(a)(1), "[n]o proof of coercive intent or effect is necessary," and we ask only "whether the employer engaged in conduct, which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act." Brandeis Mach. & Supply Co. v. NLRB , 412 F.3d 822, 830 (7th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Our review of a Board decision is limited. We look for whether substantial evidence supports the Board's factual findings and whether legal conclusions have a reasonable basis in law. See Rochelle Waste Disposal, LLC v. NLRB , 673 F.3d 587, 592 (7th Cir. 2012). These standards are not demanding: a finding is supported by substantial evidence if "a reasonable mind might accept" its truth. See SCA Tissue N. Am. LLC v. NLRB , 371 F.3d 983, 988 (7th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also id. at 987–88 (describing our review of a Board decision as "circumscribed" and reminding that "we must not dabble in fact-finding and may not dispute reasonable determinations’ " (citation omitted)). The party challenging the Board's determination bears the burden of proof. See Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150 v. NLRB , 47 F.3d 218, 222 (7th Cir. 1995). Where, as here, the Board adopts the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law, our review focuses on the ALJ's order. See SCA Tissue N. Am. LLC , 371 F.3d at 988.

A

We begin with the ALJ's conclusion that Woodbridge violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by ordering Chavez to stop wearing the vest with the Cellar Lives Matter slogan. We also start from the common recognition by the parties that section 7 of the Act protects an employee's right to wear clothing bearing pro-union messages "as part of concerted activity to assist the union." Brandeis Mach. , 412 F.3d at 832 (quoting NLRB v. Shelby Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n , 1 F.3d 550, 556 (7th Cir. 1993) ). An employer violates section 8(a)(1) when it curtails that right, see Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB , 324 U.S. 793, 802–03 n.7, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372 (1945), and indeed such action is presumptively invalid. See Medco Health Sols. of Las Vegas, Inc. , 364 N.L.R.B. No. 115, 2016 WL 4582495, at *4 (2016).

An employee's right to wear union insignia is not absolute, however. An employer may restrain an employee's pro-union speech "when the employer demonstrates that special circumstances exist which justif[y] the banning of union insignia." Brandeis Mach. , 412 F.3d at 832 (citation omitted). Special circumstances may be present where a message would "jeopardize employee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate employee dissension, or unreasonably interfere with a public image that the employer has established, as part of its business plan, through appearance rules for its employees." Medco Health Sols. , 364 N.L.R.B. 115, at *4. The employer shoulders the obligation of showing the presence of special circumstances. See Brandeis Mach. , 412 F.3d at 832.

The ALJ applied these principles and, based on evidence presented during a three-day evidentiary hearing, found that the Cellar Lives Matter slogan expressed a pro-union message that enjoys protection under the Act. We cannot say this finding lacks substantial support in the record. Chavez penned the slogan on his work vest in an effort to promote the fledgling union and to protest Woodbridge's refusal to recognize and bargain with the...