Evening star., 1948-09-26
Limits on Speech Freedom
In Labor Field Weiohed
NLRB Considers Liberal Definition
Favoring Union Organizers
N 4
By Gerard D. Reilly

Favorins Union Organizers
By Gerard d. Reilly
Probably no aspect Of labor relations has
aroused more bitter controversy than the oues-
ton of whether the law should place any re.
strictions upon speeches by employers and labor
organizers intended to influence the attitude
Of workers in the matter Of joining unions. AL
though Congress attempted to deal with the
matter in the Taft-Hartley Act, the National
Labor Relations Board is Just beginning to con.
slider the problem in the light of the new
definition.
The latest decision on this subject is beins
carried to the board on exceptions. 1t Is re-
port Of Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in
q complaint case initiated by the seamprufs
Corporation of Oklahoma against the Interna-
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union The
case grew out of an unsuccessful attempt on the
part Of the union to organize the employees of
the plant. The complaint accused the union
OF committing an unfair labor practice, viz
restraining and coercing the employees in the
freedom Of choice guaranteed them by the act
in the matter of joining or refrainng from
joining labor organizations
The evidence taken before Trial Examiner
Royster established that Mavis Lane a paid
organizer, had conducted an open meeting of
the Seamprufe employees, at which she appealed
to the workers to sign applications for mem-
bership in the union One of the employees
took issue with her. She said, I'VE have ways
OF handling people like you who argue against
the union" The trial examiner found that tina
organizer had also said that when the plant
was organized the employees who would not
JOIN the union would eventually lose their jobs.
Inc Taft-Hartley Act prohibits both en-
pioyes and labor organizations from engaging
IN restraint and coercion Of employees Because
the board during the early period of the wag-
ner Act had held that any speech on unionism
by the employer had . coercive effect upon
the workers. proposition which the Supreme
Court later found to be an infringement upon
the constitutional right Of free speech-Con-
gress. in amending the Wagner Act inserted
the following provision:
'The expressing of any views. argument q
opinion, or the dissemination thereof whether
in written printed, graphic or visual form,
shall not constitute or be evidence of an un-
fair labor practice under any of the provisions
of this act, If such expression contains no
threat OF reprisal or force or promise Of
benefit"
Having made this finding of fact. Trial Ex-
aminer Royster was therefore confronted with
the problem Of whether or not the union had
violated the act The theory Of the general
counsels Office was that the statements OF the
organizer did coerce the employees and were
not privileged by the new statute since the in
timation that the nonunion employees could
lose their jobs amounted to threat Of re-
prisal" and that the remark about handling
people - = who argue against the union" was
a veiled threat of force.
The trial examiner concluded, however, that
neither statement violated the act. He said:
80 4" The employees knew, of course, that
Lane was not their employer and that she had
no power to affect their tenure of employment.
She said when the plant is organized those
who do not join the union eventually will lose
their Jobs She spoke entirely of a situation
which might arise in the future and Of condi-
tions which the union might lawfully seek to
secure Since Lane, as an agent Of the union.
might properly and legally seek, after desig.
nation by . majority Of the employees, to ne.
eotiate a union-shop agreement with Seam
prlfe, . statement Of her purpose to do 50
could not constitute coercion.
Lane had a right to address the gathering.
to extoll the virtues Of labor organizations, to
describe the advantages Of collective action, and
to persuade her audience to action with respect
to joining the union. Coercion is defined AZ
The application to another Of such force, either
physical or moral, as to constrain him to do
against his will something he would not other
wise have done find this to be the generally
accepted definition Of the word and the sense
in which II is used in the act Lane applied
no such force, simply called to the attention OF
her audience the possible or probable result OF
organization and left to their collective ana
individual Judgment what action with respect
to joining the union they should take
FINALLY. Lane told Michie We have ways OF
handling people like you that argue against
the union What ways?
= She may have intended anything
within the speculative imagination Of the
hearer but a speaker is not bound by the vary
ins capacities for understanding Of his audience
nor chargeable with the violation of a statuts
because some of his hearers may give an inter-
probation to his remarks not clearly h'ehoeo
by the words spoken"
= =
Should the trial examiners decision b
approved by the board, 1t means that union
of1icials will have far more license during
organizing campaigns than employers are
permitted-even under the new statute. Wnlls
the board has upheld the right Of employers
to make arguments even on working time 70
their employees which are intended TO dis"
courage them signing up with union, 1t has
frowned upon any hint that an individual
worker who did so would be viewed with dis.
favor. Thus in several instances the board
has found that for an employer or supervisor
to interrogate a man as to whether or not ne
has Joined the union amounts to coercion In
some of these cases the question was not
accompanied by any express threat OF repriSai'
The implied threat was deemed suf11cient.
Mr.. Registers justification of the intimatlon
that the workers who do not join the union
would lose their jobs Is also subject TO cr,tcism
He points out that under the law II the union
became the bargaining representative and won
a union shop election 1t could bargain Tor
contract which, If accepted by the employer.
would pose all the workers with the cnoice OF