402:, and it also was part owner of the plaza's parking lot. Employees of Lechmere, Inc. who drove to work used the lot to park their vehicles during their shifts. The parking lot was separated from a public highway by a strip of land that was almost entirely public property. Local union organizers, not employees of Lechmere, Inc., attempted to organize Lechmere employees by placing promotional handbills on the windshields of cars parked in the employee area of the lot. Lechmere then denied the organizers access to the lot. This act caused the organizers instead to distribute their handbills from the aforementioned strip of public land between the lot and the highway.
133:
417:) by barring them access to the parking lot. The applicable language of the law cited was the guarantee of the NLRA that employees have "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations" (§7) and that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees" in exercising their §7 rights. The NLRB affirmed the union's grievance, and the Court of Appeals enforced the NLRB's decision.
24:
437:§7 of the NLRA does not apply to nonemployee union organizers unless "the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through the usual channels." The Court reasoned it was improper to even begin a balancing test and private property rights unless "reasonable access to employees is infeasible."
565:
440:
The union failed in demonstrating that there were any "unique obstacles" that prevented reasonable union access to the employees. The employees did not live in the shopping plaza and so they were not beyond the union's reach, and the Court further reasoned that the mere size of the city itself did
489:
After the decision, the Court of
Appeals remanded the case to the NLRB to consider whether the Lechmere Company had violated Section 8(a)(1) by directing the non-employee union organizers to leave the public grassy area. The NLRB reaffirmed its previous ruling, holding that "the Supreme Court's
433:
The NLRA "confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers." They reasoned that the NLRA guarantees that employees would be free to organize if they so chose, but the employer is not obligated to allow nonemployee union representatives access to their private
571:
886:
527:
611:
552:
512:
222:
174:
522:
901:
740:
547:
441:
not render the employees "inaccessible." The Court cited the fact that the union had been able to contact at least 20 employees directly regarding the organization.
730:
725:
735:
750:
239:
Store owner did not commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1) of
National Labor Relations Act by barring nonemployee union organizers from parking lot.
911:
745:
881:
775:
697:
517:
891:
763:
896:
88:
720:
426:
406:
372:
350:
137:
60:
107:
67:
916:
755:
383:. It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property unless no reasonable alternatives exist.
860:
410:
45:
38:
690:
74:
414:
380:
56:
906:
683:
822:
34:
658:
590:
210:
454:
395:
282:
796:
615:
556:
226:
166:
81:
622:
640:
181:
490:
vindication of the private-property rights, if anything, elevates the gravity of attempt to bar
429:
reversed the lower court's decision based on three primary faults observed with the complaint:
827:
780:
478:
450:
274:
254:
848:
768:
631:
812:
706:
495:
462:
446:
306:
294:
559:
474:
458:
286:
270:
192:) ¶ 11,066; 139 L.R.R.M. 2225; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 743; 92 Daily Journal DAR 1235
875:
843:
189:
507:
466:
376:
368:
298:
169:
649:
354:
491:
470:
262:
23:
218:
185:
817:
667:
399:
391:
214:
675:
528:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
207:
679:
206:
On appeal from the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, 914
132:
323:
Thomas, joined by
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
17:
413:), claiming that Lechmere had violated §7 of the NLRA (the
887:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
572:
public domain material from this U.S government document
409:
filed an unfair labor practice charge to the NLRB (the
513:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 502
523:
Lists of United States
Supreme Court cases by volume
836:
805:
789:
713:
343:
335:
327:
319:
314:
243:
233:
202:
197:
161:
151:
144:
125:
741:Montgomery Ward Building (Lewistown, Pennsylvania)
586:Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
548:Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
364:Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
156:Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
126:Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
731:Montgomery Ward Building (Evansville, Indiana)
726:Montgomery Ward Building (Burlington, Vermont)
736:Montgomery Ward Building (Idaho Falls, Idaho)
691:
8:
751:Montgomery Ward Building (San Angelo, Texas)
394:owned a retail store in a shopping plaza in
746:Montgomery Ward Building (Pueblo, Colorado)
776:Montgomery Ward Warehouse and Retail Store
698:
684:
676:
445:The opinion of the Court was delivered by
122:
902:National Labor Relations Board litigation
518:List of United States Supreme Court cases
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
764:Henkel-Duke Mercantile Company Warehouse
539:
473:filed a dissenting opinion, joined by
188:555; 60 U.S.L.W. 4145; 120 Lab. Cas. (
44:Please improve this article by adding
481:filed a separate dissenting opinion.
120:1992 United States Supreme Court case
7:
912:United Food and Commercial Workers
407:United Food and Commercial Workers
373:Supreme Court of the United States
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
882:United States Supreme Court cases
618:527 (1992) is available from:
563:
131:
22:
892:United States property case law
756:Montgomery Ward Company Complex
897:1992 in United States case law
861:Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer
411:National Labor Relations Board
349:National Labor Relations Act,
1:
46:secondary or tertiary sources
415:National Labor Relations Act
367:, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), is a
760:Montgomery Ward Warehouse:
398:, a metropolitan area near
933:
668:Oyez (oral argument audio)
570:This article incorporates
593: (1st Cir. 1990).
348:
331:White, joined by Blackmun
248:
238:
130:
147:Decided January 27, 1992
145:Argued November 12, 1991
57:"Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB"
451:Chief Justice Rehnquist
381:private property rights
917:Newington, Connecticut
855:Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB
608:Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB
396:Newington, Connecticut
33:relies excessively on
797:Aaron Montgomery Ward
591:914 F.2d 313
449:, who was joined by
421:Opinion of the Court
180:112 S. Ct. 841; 117
659:Library of Congress
283:Sandra Day O'Connor
259:Associate Justices
869:
868:
781:Virginia Building
455:Justices O'Connor
405:Local 919 of the
360:
359:
255:William Rehnquist
118:
117:
110:
92:
924:
849:CyberVision 2001
769:Montgomery Plaza
700:
693:
686:
677:
672:
666:
663:
657:
654:
648:
645:
639:
636:
630:
627:
621:
594:
588:
582:
576:
567:
566:
544:
475:Justice Blackmun
244:Court membership
135:
134:
123:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
932:
931:
927:
926:
925:
923:
922:
921:
907:Montgomery Ward
872:
871:
870:
865:
832:
801:
785:
721:Montgomery Park
709:
707:Montgomery Ward
704:
670:
664:
661:
655:
652:
646:
643:
637:
634:
628:
625:
619:
603:
598:
597:
584:
583:
579:
564:
545:
541:
536:
504:
496:public property
487:
479:Justice Stevens
423:
389:
307:Clarence Thomas
297:
295:Anthony Kennedy
285:
275:John P. Stevens
273:
229:918 (1991).
193:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
43:
39:primary sources
27:
12:
11:
5:
930:
928:
920:
919:
914:
909:
904:
899:
894:
889:
884:
874:
873:
867:
866:
864:
863:
858:
851:
846:
840:
838:
834:
833:
831:
830:
825:
820:
815:
809:
807:
803:
802:
800:
799:
793:
791:
787:
786:
784:
783:
778:
773:
772:
771:
766:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
717:
715:
711:
710:
705:
703:
702:
695:
688:
680:
674:
673:
641:Google Scholar
602:
601:External links
599:
596:
595:
577:
538:
537:
535:
532:
531:
530:
525:
520:
515:
510:
503:
500:
486:
483:
447:Justice Thomas
443:
442:
438:
435:
422:
419:
392:Lechmere, Inc.
388:
385:
358:
357:
351:29 U.S.C.
346:
345:
341:
340:
337:
333:
332:
329:
325:
324:
321:
317:
316:
312:
311:
310:
309:
287:Antonin Scalia
271:Harry Blackmun
260:
257:
252:
246:
245:
241:
240:
236:
235:
231:
230:
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
179:
163:
159:
158:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
929:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
879:
877:
862:
859:
857:
856:
852:
850:
847:
845:
844:Colony Brands
842:
841:
839:
835:
829:
826:
824:
821:
819:
816:
814:
811:
810:
808:
804:
798:
795:
794:
792:
788:
782:
779:
777:
774:
770:
767:
765:
762:
761:
759:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
716:
712:
708:
701:
696:
694:
689:
687:
682:
681:
678:
669:
660:
651:
642:
633:
624:
623:CourtListener
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
600:
592:
587:
581:
578:
575:
573:
562: (1992).
561:
558:
554:
550:
549:
543:
540:
533:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
505:
501:
499:
497:
493:
484:
482:
480:
476:
472:
471:Justice White
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
439:
436:
432:
431:
430:
428:
427:Supreme Court
420:
418:
416:
412:
408:
403:
401:
397:
393:
386:
384:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
356:
352:
347:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:Case opinions
313:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
258:
256:
253:
251:Chief Justice
250:
249:
247:
242:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
205:
201:
196:
191:
187:
183:
177:
176:
171:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
98:December 2019
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
854:
853:
806:Subsidiaries
607:
585:
580:
569:
546:
542:
508:US labor law
488:
485:Significance
444:
424:
404:
390:
377:union rights
371:case of the
369:US labor law
363:
362:
361:
344:Laws applied
302:
299:David Souter
290:
278:
266:
198:Case history
173:
155:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
32:
15:
263:Byron White
221:. granted,
876:Categories
714:Facilities
494:access to
387:Background
355:§ 157
186:U.S. LEXIS
68:newspapers
35:references
828:Riverside
434:property.
184:79; 1992
182:L. Ed. 2d
162:Citations
818:Lechmere
606:Text of
502:See also
400:Hartford
320:Majority
215:1st Cir.
837:Related
823:Records
813:Airline
632:Findlaw
463:Kennedy
339:Stevens
336:Dissent
328:Dissent
234:Holding
217:1990);
82:scholar
790:People
671:
665:
662:
656:
653:
650:Justia
647:
644:
638:
635:
629:
626:
620:
589:,
568:
551:,
467:Souter
459:Scalia
353:
305:
303:·
301:
293:
291:·
289:
281:
279:·
277:
269:
267:·
265:
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
614:
555:
534:Notes
492:union
225:
203:Prior
89:JSTOR
75:books
616:U.S.
557:U.S.
465:and
453:and
425:The
379:and
227:U.S.
219:cert
208:F.2d
175:more
167:U.S.
165:502
61:news
612:502
560:527
553:502
498:."
375:on
223:499
211:313
190:CCH
170:527
37:to
878::
610:,
477:.
469:.
461:,
457:,
48:.
699:e
692:t
685:v
574:.
213:(
178:)
172:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
