Essendant Co.,

Docket Number05-CA-170845

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

Essendant Co. and Teamsters Local Union No. 570 affiliated with The International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Case 5–CA–170845

March 16, 2017



On October 18, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a reply brief. The Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2

1 The General Counsel excepts, in part, to the judge’s failure to rule on his motion to strike portions of the Respondent’s brief to the judge, which cited a Wikipedia page and an online abstract, because they were not part of the stipulated record. We find it unnecessary to pass on that exception because the judge did not rely on those portions of the Respondent’s brief and, in any event, the cited material would not affect the result in this case.

2 Acting Chairman Miscimarra joins his colleagues in dismissing the complaint, which alleged that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining a rule prohibiting “distribution or posting of advertising material, handbills or printed or written literature . . . at any time in work areas.” In finding the Respondent’s rule lawful, Acting Chairman Miscimarra relies on Stoddard-Quirk Mfg. Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962) (holding that employers may lawfully prohibit distribution of written material in work areas during both working and nonworking time). He also believes that an employer may lawfully prohibit the posting of written materials anywhere on its property, provided the rule—like the rule at issue here—is nondiscriminatory. See Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin, 330 NLRB 287 (1999) (dismissing allegation that employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining a “policy requiring prior management approval before any employee posts a written notice on the hotel’s premises”). In dismissing the 8(a)(1) allegation, Acting Chairman Miscimarra...

To continue reading