Last November, the NLRB announced
that it is reconsidering the legal standard to
“determine whether an employer has
violated the National Labor Relations Act
by denying nonemployee union agents
access to its premises while allowing other
individuals, groups and/or organizations to
use its premises for various activities.”
The Roundy’s grocery store chain had
asked police to remove union members who
were distributing flyers criticizing Roundy’s
Union advocates and businesses alike
are awaiting a decision from the National
Labor Relations Board (NRLB) on a case
called Roundy’s Inc., wondering if it will
overturn the controversial 2007 Bush-era
decision in The Register-Guard v. NLRB,
which found an employer could restrict
employee use of its computer systems for
union solicitation purposes, even though it
allowed employees to use it for other
personal, non-business purposes.
Then-proofreader and employee union
president Suzi Prozanski was disciplined
for using her R-G email account to
encourage coworkers to wear green to
support the union and march in the
Eugene Celebration parade as part of the
union’s entry.
The current NLRB board chair, Wilma
Liebman dissented with the board’s
decision, writing, “NLRB has become the
'Rip Van Winkle' of administrative
agencies … Only a board that has been
asleep for the past 20 years could fail to
recognize that email has revolutionized
communication both within and outside
the workplace.”
In 2009 the decision was partially
reversed by the D.C. Circuit Court. Evi-
dence showed that the R-G allowed email
messages such as baby announcements,
party invitations, invitations for poker
games and requests for volunteers its annu-
al United Way campaign. The NLRB
accepted the R-G’s argument that it allowed
some personal use of email but that it didn’t
allow solicitation to support a group or
organization. The court disagreed and said
the R-G’s policy enforcement was discrimi-
natory.
bearing, if any, does Register-Guard have
on the board’s standard for finding
unlawful discrimination in nonemployee
access cases?”
NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe
Solomon filed a brief saying Register-
Guard “adopted an inappropriate analysis
and should be overruled.”
Because the R-G case created limits on
employee use of an employer’s email
system to solicit support for a union, union
WOLVES IN THE HOUSE
After years of public and stakeholder input, Oregon
put its Wolf Conservation and Management Plan into
place in 2005. Then the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife began a five-year review of the plan with input
from groups including sheep growers and hunters that
finished in 2010. Now conservationists say the plan, and
Oregon’s 23 confirmed gray wolves, are under attack
from bills in the Legislature that would reduce the
predators’ protections.
Native gray wolves were killed off in Oregon by the
1920s, but wolves have made their way back from a pack
that was reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in
Wolf from Oregon's
1995. The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, which
Wenaha pack. This
sponsored the wolf bills in the Legislature, calls the
wolf was later killed
wolves “Canadian gray wolves.” The OCA says in its
by a poacher.
talking points that the “federal government should
shoulder the burden of protecting life, property and
livelihood” but short of that, the cattlemen argue that the Oregon bills are needed to give ranchers tools to fight the predators.
The House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources heard testimony on the five bills concerning wolves on March
30 and April 5. Josh Laughlin of Cascadia Wildlands, which was involved in the wolf plan process, testified at the March 30
hearing in general support of HB 3013 and HB 3560, bills that would give ranchers compensation for livestock killed by wolves.
But the group has caveats to its support, such as that wolf kills should be confirmed by ODFW, and hunting dogs injured or
killed by wolves should not be compensated for, given the risky nature of the activity.
Laughlin points out that in January 2010 there were 1.2 million cows in Oregon, but only 14 wolves. In 2005 over 60,000
cattle died from reasons such as digestive problems. Since wolves began to reenter Oregon in 1999, Laughlin says less than 40
cows have been killed by the predators.
He says that the wolf plan already calls for compensation, and the compensation bills merely parallel the plan. Cascadia
Wildlands and other conservation groups would want to be in on the discussion process if they were to support the bills, he says.
The groups also advocate funding to encourage ranchers to get flagged electric fences to ward off the wolves
Three other bills that have been brought up in the House give more cause for alarm, according to Laughlin. He says the bills
“diminish the protections for recovering gray wolves.” HB 3561 would reduce the number of breeding pairs to only four in
Oregon before delisting them from the state Endangered Species Act, which Laughlin says undermines the stakeholder created
wolf plan. HB 3562 would allow for the killing of a wolf if it attacks a human, but Laughlin says that is already allowed under
the wolf plan. He calls 3562 “the Little Red Riding Hood and Three Little Pigs” bill and says it was introduced to “try to whip
up fear” and play off the falsehoods that have surrounded wolves for centuries. He says only two people have been killed by
wolves in North America in the last 100 years.
The final bill, HB 3563 allows people to kill wolves without a permit or cause if they venture within 500 feet of a house or
if they chase, harass, wound or bite livestock, pets or working or sporting dogs. This bill, Laughlin says, makes poaching laws
unenforceable and undermines the wolf plan. “We should encourage wolf recovery,” he says, “not legislatively work to reduce
protections for the species.” — Camilla Mortensen
PHOTO COURTESY ODFW
NEW DECISION
ON R-G
EMAIL CASE?
use of nonunion construction labor. But the
stores allowed others to flyer in the same area.
Bob Bussel of UO’s Labor Education
and Research Center (LERC), says the
R-G case has become a “labor cause
célèbre.” He says the NLRB “ruled initially
that there was a basic property rights
issue,” where others, like Liebman see the
email issue as more nuanced.
The NLRB asked for amicus briefs
looking into the question of: “What
APRIL 6–10
Tickets and info at
cinemapacific.uoregon.edu
EO/AA/ADA institution committed to cultural diversity © 2011 University of Oregon
Featuring guest filmmakers, fabulous parties, and the Adrenaline Film Project.
Tickets on sale at theaters (McDonald, Hult Center, Bijou, and Columbia Hall).
8
APRIL 7, 2011
EUGENE WEEKLY
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM