According to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an employer violates employees’ rights to organize when it initiates a “no-harassment” rule after a union files a petition with the NLRB seeking to represent the employees in the collective bargaining process.

In January of 2000, an organizing drive was launched among the employees of Stanadyne Automobile Corp. in Windsor, Conn. On May 15, 2000, the union filed a petition with the NLRB to represent the employees. The election was scheduled for June 29, 2000.

Before the petition, there was no rule prohibiting the employees from discussing any topic. After the petition, however, Stanadyne’s supervisor’s informed employees that they were not allowed to discuss the union or solicit support during working hours. Some employees were even warned that talking about the union could result in disciplinary action or termination.

On June 6th, Stanadyne CEO William Gurley, said that the company was declaring a rule against “harassment.” He said “it has come to my attention that some union supporters are harassing fellow employees. You can disagree with the company position; you can be for the union. You can be for anything you want to, but no one should be harassed. Harassment of any type is not tolerated by this company and will be dealt with.”

Four weeks after Gurley set forth this rule, the union lost the election. Based on the union’s objections, an administrative law judge found that Stanadyne had violated the National Labor Relations Act when it barred employees from talking about the union. Upon Stanadyne’s appeal, the NLRB agreed on the judge’s finding regarding barring employees from discussing union matters. However, they reversed the finding on the “no-harassment” rule, because it was shown that Gurley had knowledge of vandalism occurring in relation to union solicitation.

Finally, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled that employers may not “promulgate a rule which has a chilling effect on the right to organize or join a union.”