Opinion ID: 733366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employer Free Speech and Section 8(c)

Text: 22 Responding to the charge that aggressive enforcement of § 8(a)(1) had made it excessively difficult for employers to engage in any form of non-coercive communications with employees regarding the merits of unionization, 8 Congress in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments 9 to the Act added § 8(c), which provides that [t]he expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice ... if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. 29 U.S.C. § 158(c) (1994). In N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), the Supreme Court noted that § 8(c) merely implements the First Amendment by establishing an employer's free speech right to communicate his views to his employees. Id. at 617, 89 S.Ct. at 1941. The Court also observed, however, that [a]ny assessment of the precise scope of employer expression ... must be made in the context of its labor relations setting, and that an employer's rights cannot outweigh the equal rights of the employees to associate freely. Id. 23 In its polling cases, the Board has consistently and firmly rejected the argument that employer polling is expression protected by § 8(c). See Struksnes, 165 N.L.R.B. at 1062 n. 8 (It is well established that an employer, in questioning his employees as to their union sympathies, is not expressing views, argument, or opinion within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act, as the purpose of an inquiry is not to express views but to ascertain those of the person questioned (citing Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 329 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1964) and N.L.R.B. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 179 F.2d 323 (8th Cir.1950))); Cannon Electric, 151 N.L.R.B. at 1469 (Interrogation, particularly systematic polling of employees as to their union sympathies, is not an expression of 'views, argument, or opinion' within the meaning of Section 8(c). The purpose of interrogation is not to express views, but to ascertain those of the person interrogated. (citation omitted)); Standard-Coosa-Thatcher, 85 N.L.R.B. at 1363 ([W]e again reject the contention that interrogation is protected by Section 8(c) of the amended Act.... [T]he purpose of [§ 8(c) ] is to permit an employer to express his views, not to license him to extract those of his employees. The employer is explicitly accorded a right to 'influence' his employees by verbal appeals to reason, but not to fear. (citations omitted)). 24