Search form

Jackson Lewis Submits Brief Urging NLRB to Limit Union Access to Employer Property

  • January 12, 2011

Jackson Lewis LLP, on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center, Inc., has filed with the National Labor Relations Board a “friend-of-the-court” brief urging the Board to limit non-employee union agents’ right to access store property to communicate to shoppers the union’s disagreement with the way the retailer is operating.  The brief asks the NLRB to limit such access only to cases where the employer has allowed like conduct by other individuals and groups, so that the union has been singled out for adverse treatment. 

The action came in a case involving Roundy’s, Inc., a supermarket operator in Wisconsin and Minnesota. The retail chain had sought to prevent a carpenters’ union from handbilling shoppers on store grounds to protest the supermarket’s use of a non-union contractor to perform renovations and asking the public not to shop at the store.  The Board had invited interested parties to submit briefs in the matter.  (See our article, NLRB to Decide on Union Access to Employer Property.)

Almost two decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed a retailer’s right to exclude unwanted intruders from its property, subject only to certain limited exceptions.  Jackson Lewis’ amicus curiae brief for the retail industry argues that the 2007 Board decision in Register-Guard presents the best way to analyze the "discrimination exception" raised in Roundy's. The brief says the Board’s earlier decision enables retail employers to control access to their property by non-employee union agents.  

The Retail Litigation Center participates in selected federal and state cases affecting issues of importance to the retail industry.  The Center provides the retail industry with an opportunity to be heard on important legal questions and helps inform courts and administrative agencies of the potential effects of their decisions on the industry.

©2011 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

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law go into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More

October 15, 2019

New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?

October 15, 2019

California has joined a number of states in passing legislation purporting to prohibit mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and other claims. Such laws have gained popularity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but are subject to challenge under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption principles. (See our articles... Read More

October 15, 2019

Third-Party Harassment and Discrimination: The Customer Isn’t Always Right

October 15, 2019

As fiscal year 2019 ends for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it has announced it is pursuing several new discrimination suits, including one alleging a casino failed to protect female staffers from sexual harassment by patrons. Sexual misconduct and harassment have been in the national spotlight more than ever and... Read More