Legal Document

357 U.S. 78 Supreme Court Reporter 1268 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1383 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, and NuTone, Incorporated Petitioner, versus AVONDALE MILLS. Nos. 81 289. Argued Jan. 29, 1958. Decided June 30, Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. David E. Feller, respondent, Steelworkers of America, CIO. No appearance respondent Frank Atlantic Constangy, Atlanta, Ga., Avondale Mills. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 These two cases, argued in succession, are controlled by same considerations will be disposed a single opinion. In one case National Labor Relations Board ruled that it was not an unfair labor practice employer to enforce against his employees no-solicitation rule, itself concededly valid, while himself engaged anti-union solicitation context separate practices. This ruling reversed Appeals.1 second on basis similar facts, except employer's constituted practice, found enforcement rule have been but another Appeals denied Board's order. We brought both cases here because importance question they present administration Taft-Hartley Act, apparent conflict decisions Courts Appeals. 353 921, 77 682, 719; 355 u.S. 811, 46, 29. Number 81.—In April 1953 instituted campaign organize Inc., manufacturer electrical devices. early stages campaign, supervisory personnel company interrogated solicited reports concerning organizational activities other employees. Several were discharged; later discharges had result their activities. began distribute, through its personnel, literature that, although coercive, clearly tenor. August, continuing distribute such material, announced intention enforcing employees' posting signs or distributing property soliciting campaigning time. The according these posted announcements, applied 'all whether union.' Later month representation election held, which lost. 3 proceeding before commenced at instance Steelworkers, charged with number violations Act alleged taken place after election, including discriminatory application rule. pre-election interrogation discharge practices; also had, violation assisted supported employee organization formed election. However, dismissed allegation discriminatorily enforced 112 N.L.R.B. 1153. sought review this dismissal District Columbia Circuit, petitioned order court. concluded prohibit distribution during non-working hours literature; directed modified accordingly as modified. 100 U.S.App.D.C. 170, 243 Federal Reporter, 2nd 593. 4 289.—In fall 1954 Textile Workers conducted several plants A individual called company, ground union membership, informed plant rules would tolerated future. promulgated written form, there evidence previously invoked non-organizational context. During period, interviews places work, views withdraw membership cards from union. conduct many accompanied threats mill close down various benefits lost if should become organized. Subsequently three employees, each whom laid off eventually discharged violating 5 As charges filed Workers, complaint alleging committed practices, invocation violation. interrogation, threatening company's Moreover, resort therefore Act; further held even discriminatorily, resulted solely apart any practice. ordered cessation practices reinstatement 115 840. Upon petitioning Fifth contested only portions findings relating discharges. court uncontested but, finding insufficient discrimination portion third discharge, agreed unrelated directing employee's reinstatement. 242 669. 6 Employer prohibiting themselves violative may duly serve production, discipline. See Republic Aviation Corporation Board, 324 793, 65 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372; Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 105, 76 679, 975. neither us did party attacking contest validity. Nor is claim made not, under proper circumstances, engage non-coercive solicitation; indeed, right do so protected so-called 'employer free speech' provision § 8(c) Act.2 Contrariwise, show, coercive run afoul constitute irrespective bearing very narrow almost abstract derives when engages rule—particularly practices—his otherwise valid asked coincidence circumstances necessarily violates regardless way particular controversy arose considerable degree created imbalance opportunities communication. For lay law show indifference responsibilities imposed primarily appraise carefully interests sides labor-management diverse light special understanding industrial situations. 7 There no indication record either behalf, requested employer, engaging solicitation, make exception pro-union solicitation. employers past exceptions charitable Notwithstanding clear bias employers, conclude matter law—although might well open experience—that request qualification upon rejected. Certainly obliged voluntarily without offer use facilities time He wary charge he interfering with, contributing support to, 8(a)(2) Act.3 8 attempt showing truly diminished ability organizations involved carry message Just vital consideration determining validity see supra, pages 797—798, 985—986; page 112, 684, highly relevant has fairly applied. Of course effect closing channel communication; does command law, all every possible means reaching minds workers, nor entitled medium communication simply using it. Cf. Bonwit Teller, Cir., 197 640, 646; KF105 F3 W. Woolworth 214 78, 84 (concurring opinion). mechanical answers avail solution non-mechanical, complex problem relations. If, virtue location resources available union, effectively message, spite least great promote legally authorized expression views, invalidating 'otherwise valid' rules. find alternative channels, communications organize. When important issue raised adduced, concrete appraising significance wanting. 9 imply who All we hold must some basis, actualities relations, finding. records cases—the issues proceedings—are barren ingredients Accordingly judgment reversed, insofar sets aside requires modify order, cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion; respects, affirmed. 289 10 It ordered. 11 Judgment part affirmed directions; 12 BLACK DOUGLAS affirm reasons set forth Appeals, 13 join dissent 289, 14 Chief WARREN dissenting concurring part. 15 concern preventing concurrent embarks program advocacy Contrary what stated Court, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions believe considerations. pivotal distinction Mills antiunion nature, not. Mills, concur 81, Steelworkers. 16 affirms refused premises working contrary Section 8(a)(1) Act. cannot agree conclusion majority sustain action Board. Their depends circumstances. first failure antisolicitation organizing campaign. slender reed. Union distributed November 10, 1954. On next day certain summoned office management representative, read following statement: 17 'It come our attention you attempting solicit hours, work. future instances sort prompt dismissal.' 18 Immediately thereafter series personal confrontations members loss jobs continued became unionized. Furthermore, substantial able prior 11, 1954, fact measure. None conclusions disturbed below, merely facts oppose thus attaches significance, where failed grant union's benefit keep out. 19 circumstance relies reasonable alternatives face Admittedly, nature elements no-distribution issue. 975; 1372. heretofore indispensable csae being examined.1 contrast concerned per se. examination But account link coercion, far more than discussion site plant, surrounding area, residence workers. 20 While praising 'the situations,' reverses within competence. An shows already apprized controversy. forbidden hours. contemporaneously those practices—the comes into question, separable. Under valid. determination occur,2 subjected kind scrutiny. Employees classic captive audience. At moment greatest control forced listen denunciations coupled references disasters ensue succeeded holding here. unionized concerted activity, unable, due own try overcome though necessary suggest opportunity opposing decisive factors dispute denies them pursues coercion denial interference rights guaranteed hence 8(a)(1). 21 balancing views.' carried Far 'legally authorized,' itself. Thus possibility curtailing legitimate First Amendment aid occurred choice required between Congress 7, hesitated give congressional will. supra; Stowe Spinning 336 226, 69 541, 93 638; cf. supra. 22 result. declined point, modifying accordingly. sustains conceded determined expressions noncoercive nature. creates Being Act3 used contemporaneous practice.4 statutory decision 49 Statutes-at-Large 449, 452, amended 61 136, 140, 29 Code KF62 158(a)(1), Annotated KF65 U5 provides: '(a) shall employer— '(1) interfere restrain, coerce exercise section 7; * *.' 157, provides '(e)mployees self-organization, join, assist organizations, bargain collectively representatives choosing, purpose collective bargaining mutual protection, refrain extent affected agreement requiring condition employment 8(a)(3).' 142, 158(c), 158(c): 'The expressing argument, opinion, dissemination thereof, written, printed, graphic, visual provisions contains threat reprisal force promise benefit.' 158(a)(2), 158(a)(2). appears large nonurban manufacturer, whose lived distances greater walking distance Long Island area. 800, 986. goes note companion Le Tourneau case, 'No offered unusual conditions existed contention differed occurring normally establishment.' Supra, 801, 987. Evidence anf now similarly absent Matter Peyton Packing 828, quoted approval Aviation, 803, 988, 10. Virginia Elec. Power 314 469, 62 344, 86 348; International Association Machinists, etc. 311 72, 83, 85 50. H.R.Rep. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 8, 33; H.R.Conf.Rep. 510, 45. remarks Senator Taft Senate debate Cong.Rec. 6443—6444, 6446—6447, 6859—6860.

Classification Label: 6