Tuesday, July 14, 2015

The "Prisoners of AT$T" Lose in D.C. Circuit

I love it when a judicial opinion tells you everything you need to know in the opening paragraph. It allows me to blog about the case by just cutting and pasting... hold on a second... just trying to reach the ctrl and the v... here ya go:
Common sense sometimes matters in resolving legal disputes. This case is a good example. AT&T Connecticut banned employees who interact with customers or work in public – including employees who enter customers’ homes – from wearing union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of AT$T” on the back. Seems reasonable. No company, at least one that is interested in keeping its customers, presumably wants its employees walking into people’s homes wearing shirts that say “Inmate” and “Prisoner.” But the NLRB ruled in a 2-1 decision that AT&T committed an unfair labor practice by barring its employees from wearing those shirts. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects the right of employees to wear union apparel at work. But under this Court’s precedent and Board decisions, there is a “special circumstances” exception to that general rule: A company may lawfully prohibit its employees from displaying messages on the job that the company reasonably believes may harm its relationship with its customers or its public image. Put simply, it was reasonable for AT&T to believe that the “Inmate/Prisoner” shirts may harm AT&T’s relationship with its customers or its public image. Therefore, AT&T lawfully prohibited its employees here from wearing the shirt. We grant AT&T’s petition for review, vacate the Board’s decision and order with respect to the “Inmate/Prisoner” shirts, and deny the Board’s cross-application for enforcement.
Southern New England Telephone Company v. NLRB (opinion here). Wow, a not-so-subtle dig at the NLRB in line 1.

HT: Ross Runkel, “Prisoner of AT$T” T-shirt can be banned.