Search form

Scabby the Rat Could Face Extermination under Labor Board General Counsel’s Recommendation

By Courtney M. Malveaux, Richard F. Vitarelli and M. Christopher Moon
  • June 25, 2019

A recent Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel’s office (GC Office) has recommended that the Board engage in pest control.

As background, federal labor law strictly regulates “secondary” activity by unions, including protests against “neutral” businesses with whom there is no dispute. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits unions from threatening, coercing, or restraining these neutral employers to cease business with other businesses. Under the Board’s standards, picketing a neutral employer is almost always unlawful. Mere informational handbilling, on the other hand, is not.

Secondary activity often occurs in the construction industry. Labor unions attack not only subcontractors that allegedly pay substandard wages or refuse to enter into project labor agreements with the unions, but also general contractors and business owners that have hired those subcontractors.

For decades, labor unions have used a giant inflatable balloon rat, colloquially known as “Scabby the Rat,” to make the public aware of labor disputes. Unions’ use of Scabby has not gone unchallenged. For example, a recent federal appeals court decision found lawful a city ordinance that effectively banned “Scabby the Rat” from roadsides. And businesses have also challenged Scabby under the NLRA. In doing so, they have argued that Scabby’s use is coercive activity tantamount to picketing. When the NLRB last addressed the issue in 2011, however, it rejected these arguments. The Obama-era NLRB ruled that Scabby was not coercive. The NLRB also expressed concern that a limit on a union’s use of such symbols could raise free speech concerns under the First Amendment.

The GC Office’s Advice Memo, however, disagrees with the Board’s 2011 decision and recommends that it be overturned. After the GC Office evaluated a union’s use of one of Scabby’s friends, an inflatable “Fat Cat” clutching a construction worker by the neck, it found the use of the Fat Cat was “tantamount to picketing.” It said the Fat Cat creates a “symbolic, confrontational barrier to anyone seeking to enter or work at the construction site.” The GC Office also found that, even if the conduct were not viewed as similar to picketing, the Fat Cat was coercive enough to be unlawful.

The Memorandum is not controlling law. The five-member NLRB ultimately issues controlling decisions. That said, the GC Office decides which cases to prosecute, so the Advice Memo could result in future challenges to the use of inflatables such as Scabby. Indeed, recent news articles have reported that a test case arising out of Philadelphia is already before the Board.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about the NLRB and the GC Office.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

Top Five Labor Law Developments for August 2019

September 13, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying its employees as independent contractors. Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 61 (Aug. 29, 2019). Velox engaged drivers classified as independent contractors to transport medical samples to hospitals and... Read More

September 12, 2019

Labor Board Adopts ‘Contract Coverage’ Standard in Unilateral Change Cases, Overturns Precedent

September 12, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made it easier for employers to defend against unfair labor practice charges alleging a unilateral change in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As suggested by Chairman John Ring and Member Marvin Kaplan in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 368 NLRB No. 48 (Sept. 4,... Read More

September 9, 2019

NLRB: Property Owners May Limit Off-Duty Access by Contractors’ Employees

September 9, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that a property owner lawfully may prohibit the off-duty employees of its on-site contractors (or licensees) from accessing its private property to engage in Section 7 activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), unless (1) the off-duty employees regularly and exclusively... Read More

Related Practices