🗞️ Whose Sidewalk Is It? NLRB Rules Knoxville Manufacturer Crossed the Line by Pulling Union Signs
The NLRB ruled that Aqua-Chem, Inc. violated federal labor law by removing union organizing signs from a public right-of-way, ordering the company to return or reimburse the signs.
On April 30, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board affirmed a ruling that Aqua-Chem, Inc., a Knoxville, Tennessee water purification company, had committed an unfair labor practice when it removed union organizing signs from a publicly owned strip of land adjacent to its facility. The central question before the Board was straightforward: whether a company's legitimate concerns about a municipal ordinance could justify removing property it did not own from land it did not control.
The case traces back to a union organizing campaign that began in February 2024 among Aqua-Chem's employees. The campaign entered a new phase in May 2024, when UA Local 102, Plumbers and Pipefitters, a member union of the Tennessee Pipe Trades Association, formally notified the company of its effort. Organizer Jordan Chase Daniel designed signs displaying the logos of both the union and Aqua-Chem, along with the message "Aqua-Chem Workers United, Local 102, Knoxville, Tennessee." Before placing them on wire holders in the right-of-way along East Governor John Sevier Highway, Daniel consulted the public KGIS property-line database to confirm the locations were not on company property.
The signs Daniel had placed on May 27 were gone by early morning on May 28. Organizer Daniel returned and placed a fresh set that same morning. In a subsequent position statement, Aqua-Chem admitted to removing those May 28 signs. Aqua-Chem's general counsel, Anna Corcoran, provided her account at the hearing: she had learned of the signs by phone that morning before arriving at the office and, upon arrival, found they had already been taken down. Her stated rationale had a certain logic to it: a Knoxville municipal ordinance prohibits unauthorized signs in the public right-of-way, and the presence of Aqua-Chem's trademarked logo on the signs, she feared, could lead city officials to hold the company liable for the violation. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke described Corcoran as a "dot-all-i's, cross-all-t's kind of lawyer" and found her testimony credible. She also sent letters to the union and to Chad Weth, the city's public service director, to distance the company from any connection to the signs.
The Board found Corcoran's concern genuine but ultimately concluded it did not justify the action taken. The signs were on public property the company had no right to remove. The union organizer's phone number appeared on the signs themselves, and the company did not attempt to contact the union before pulling them. Judge Locke drew the analogy to an employer cutting a union's telephone line to prevent it from reaching workers during their off-duty time, finding the principle the same: an employer may not remove a union's means of communicating with employees on property that is not the employer's own.
The Board did draw meaningful limits on the government's theory of the case. Allegations that Aqua-Chem removed an earlier set of signs on May 27 were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. The letter to the city was not found to constitute an unlawful attempt to enlist government enforcement against the union. And the company's cease-and-desist letter to the union was found not to have established a blanket prohibition on the use of its logo in organizing materials.
What remained was narrow but unambiguous: removing union property from a public right-of-way, without permission and without inquiry, crosses the line drawn by Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board ordered Aqua-Chem to return the signs or, if they no longer exist, to compensate the union for their cost.
The decision also highlights a constitutional argument that has become increasingly common in NLRB proceedings. Aqua-Chem raised the claim that the Board's structure violates Article II of the Constitution because its members and administrative law judges are insulated from removal by the president. The Board rejected the defense on two independent grounds: the company had failed to litigate it at the hearing, and it had not demonstrated any actual harm resulting from the removal protections it challenged, a threshold requirement under recent Supreme Court precedent.
Key Points
- Aqua-Chem, Inc., a Knoxville water purification company, removed union organizing signs from a public right-of-way adjacent to its facility on May 28, 2024.
- The signs were placed by organizers from UA Local 102 and the Tennessee Pipe Trades Association, who had verified using public mapping tools that the location was not company property.
- The company's stated justification was concern that its trademarked logo on the signs could expose it to fines under a Knoxville city ordinance barring unauthorized signs in public rights-of-way.
- The NLRB found the concern genuine but legally insufficient; the signs were on public land the company had no authority to take, and the company made no attempt to contact the union before doing so.
- Allegations involving a prior set of signs (May 27), a letter to the city, and a claimed logo-use prohibition were all dismissed.
- The Board ordered Aqua-Chem to return the signs or reimburse their cost, and to post a notice to employees affirming their rights under federal labor law.
- Aqua-Chem's constitutional challenge to the NLRB's removal-protection structure was rejected for failure to demonstrate actual harm, consistent with a growing line of Board decisions.
Primary Source Author: Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke; affirmed by Chairman James R. Murphy and Members David M. Prouty and Scott A. Mayer
Primary Source: Aqua-Chem, Inc. and Tennessee Pipe Trades Association, 374 NLRB No. 102 (April 30, 2026)
Primary Source Link: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-345660
