Employer Committed an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB, 434 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970), employees
of the company lived in a greatly dispersed geographical area, causing immense issues to union
organizers in communicating with workers outside of company property (p.1097). Of the 17,000
employees, only 6,000 lived within seven miles of the plants, while the rest of employees lived
in 118 different towns in Connecticut and 27 different towns in Massachusetts (ibid p.1202).
Due to this information, Unions could not contact employees at their homes, which is a usual
and important means of communication utilized in the organization of workers (ibid p.1206).
The union requested an up-to-date mailing list consisting of the addresses of the employees’
homes, which would be used to send valuable communications about the benefits of labor
organization (ibid p.1202). The company denied this request (ibid
p.1201). The denial constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8a(5) of the National
Labor Relations Act, which establishes that employers may not refuse to supply union’s requests
that are relevant or reasonably necessary for the performance of its representative functions
(ibid
p.1201). The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the
organizers to contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees. The court deemed that the
usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to contact every employee,
and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to
contact every employee, and withholding such information is a violation of the
NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties (ibid p.1204). The
court held that the employer violated the NLRA (ibid p.1204). In the case of Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB. In Ismene & Co. v.
Creon, the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and
Thebes (p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound of the company property,
and Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p. 3, ll. 8-14). The
union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon, and the
request was rejected by the employer (p. 9, ll. 2-6). The union organizer in Ismene & Co. v.
Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp. v.
NLRB, because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were
very dispersed, and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the
performance of the union’s functions. As a result of the analogous facts presented, the holding
from United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which
deems that an unfair labor practice was committed.
Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice
Is rejecting a union organizer’s request for a list of employee names and addresses an
unfair labor practice? In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 11, 332 NLRB 1096 (2000), a union attempted to organize the
workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming (ibid p.1097). The employees were geographically
dispersed amongst these states, which prompted the union to contend that they had no
reasonable means of communication with the employees (ibid p.1097). The union had
previously been provided an Excelsior list, which contained the names and addresses of 63
employees (ibid
p.1098). The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and
addresses for the employees in the south-central region, which management denied (ibid
p.1097). The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section
8(a)(1) rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means
of communication with the employees (ibid p.1100). The National Labor Relations Board stated
that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees’ names and
addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties’ consent-election
agreement (ibid p.1098). The unions have no such right to this information because the board
had not directed an election (ibid p.1098). The board held that the employer had not violated
Section 8(a)
(1) of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees
(ibid p. 1102). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, many of the facts are analogous to
Technology Service Solutions. In Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the employees of Creon commute to
work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth
(p. 4, ll. 4-7). Thebes is located 32.85 kilometers southbound from the company property and
Corinth is located 55.1 kilometers northbound of the company property (p.3, ll. 8-14). Similarly
to Technology Service Solutions, the employees reside in towns that are very far apart, which
posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their
homes. (p.3, ll. 8-14). The union representative was given a list containing names and email
addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon (p. 8, ll. 14-15). The union requested
that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees, which Creon rejected (p.
9, ll. 2-6). The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees
names and addresses, as determined in Technology Service Solutions, because the Board had
not directed an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the
analogous facts presented, the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the
case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair
labor practice.
Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate
with a company’s employees in order to be granted access to a company’s property? In NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc., 451 F.2d 974 (3d Cir. 1971), union representatives failed to organize members
through using available means of communication. The union contended that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its
premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers (ibid p.795). Workers
typically work six day weeks, granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the
company property to attend union informational meetings (ibid p.799). Such meetings could be
orchestrated through announcements in local newspapers or mailing lists, where employees are
provided reasonable access to such forms of communication on the company’s property (ibid
p.799). The board noted that union access to company property can only be granted if the union
displays that they have utilized all means of communication with employees and found them to
be inefficient, because organizing efforts on company premises can offer inconveniences to the
employer (ibid p.799). The board held that the union organizer had not displayed anything more
than minimal efforts to communicate with the company’s employees, which enforced that the
union should not have access to the company property with the purpose of solicitation (ibid
p.799). In the case of Ismene & Co. v. Creon, the union organizer did not display sufficient
attempts to organize Creon’s employees. Creon’s facility offers various methods of
communication with employees, “The facility has reliable, up-to-date satellite connections for
local and national radio and television stations, mobile phones, and the internet. Once a day on
Monday through Friday the shuttle stops at the post offices in Corinth and Thebes to pick up
and deliver mail, packages, newspapers, and so forth”(p. 4, ll. 16-21). Similarly to NLRB v.
Tamiment, Inc. the organizer had a variety of different methods of communication that it did
not utilize before requesting access to the company’s property. While the organizer called and
texted employees using a list containing telephone numbers and email addresses of employees,
the organizer did not utilize other means of communication such as newspaper advertisements,
television stations, or mailing services, which are all efficient methods of communication
provided by Creon in its facilities (p. 8, ll. 14-21). Due to analogous facts in both cases, the union
organizer in Ismene & Co. v. Creon should not be granted access to the company property
because they fail to demonstrate the utilization of all means of communication available with
the company’s employees. The analogous facts of the case display reasonable evidence that the
holding of NLRB v. Tamiment, Inc. should apply to Ismene & Co. v. Creon, stating that the union
representative should not be granted access to the company property for the purpose of
solicitation. The decision establishes that Creon did not commit an unfair labor practice or
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by rejecting the union representative from entering company
property with the purpose of attempting to organize its employees.
