Court Opinion

ID: 9458336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:49:18.309364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:43.672717
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority opinion to the extent that it determines that the “floor girls” were supervisors and that their interrogation of certain employees was coercive in violation of § 8(a) (1) of the Act and that such portion of the Board’s order is entitled to be enforced.
I cannot agree that the speeches of the President made on March 24 and 25, the essential portions of which are set out in the majority opinion, may be fairly interpreted as going beyond the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and § 8(c) of the Act. (28 U.S.C.A. § 158(c)). The majority in effect concedes that the March 24 speech did not violate the Act. I agree.
Thus our differences arise with respect to the March 25 speech. I find no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefits in the speech. In the first sentence of the portion of the March 25 speech, quoted in the majority opinion, the President recognized that under the Act he could make no promise of reward in light of the representation election. In light of such recognition, an intent to violate the Act cannot be easily implied.
The President later in the speech stated his view or opinion, “It has been our policy during this period of growth to pay what the business can afford and yet still stay in line with our competition.” He then goes on to say, “And when changes are due — changes will be made.” In substance, the President is merely expressing his opinion that the company will continue to follow the past policy immediately previously stated of treating the employees fairly. No unqualified promise is made to increase the employees’ compensation at any time, any increase being contingent upon what the company could afford. No promise of increase in pay in any specified amount or at any specified time can be fairly implied. There is nothing express or implied in the statement that the company policy with respect to compensation is in any degree contingent upon defeating the Union in the election or that the express policy of the company would be any different if the Union won the election.
This case is readily distinguishable factually from NLRB v. Dixisteel Buildings, Inc., 8 Cir., 445 F.2d 1260, cited in the majority opinion.
*21I would deny enforcement based on the portion of the Board’s order which finds the President’s speeches to be vio-lative of the Act.