*1 v. NATIONAL EASTEX, INC. LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD Argued April No. 77-453. 1978 Decided June *2 J., opinion Court, Powell, delivered in which BreNNAN, joined. JJ., Stewart, White, Marshall, BlackmuN, SteveNs, J., post, concurring opinion, J., fled White, p. 578. filed Rehnquist, dissenting opinion, J., joined, post, p. in which C. 579. Burger, John B. Abercrombie argued petitioner. the cause for With him on the Tom brief was Martin Davis.
Richard Allen argued A. for respondent. the cause With *3 him on the brief were McCree, Solicitor John S. General Irving, Taylor, Carl Sher, L. Norton J. Come, Linda David S. Fishback.*
Mr. Justice opinion delivered the of the Court. Powell Employees petitioner of sought to distribute a union news- letter in nonworking petitioner’s areas of property during time nonworking urging employees to support the union and proposal discussing a incorporate state “right-to-work” statute into the state constitution and a of Presidential veto an increase in the federal minimum wage. The newsletter employees also called on to take protect action to their inter- ests as employees with .respect to these two issues. question presented is whether refusal to allow the distribution violated 8§ of the Labor Rela- (a)(1) National tions Act, as amended, Stat. 140, U. C. 158 (a)(1), by interfering with, restraining, coercing employees’ exer- cise of right their under of Act, 157, §C. U. S. engage in “concerted activities for purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection.” Stephen
*William L. Keller and A. Bokat filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce the United States as amicus urging curiae reversal.
I paper products manufactures company Petitioner production employees Silsbee, 1954, petitioner’s Tex. Since Paperwork- Local 801 United represented by been have although not appears many, It ers International Union. employees production petitioner’s approximately all, “right-to-work” Texas is are members Local 801. Since obtaining an agree- barred from by statute,1 Local 801 is State production petitioner requiring ment with all become union members. strengthen seeking March officers Local recruit new perhaps union and
employee support for the negotiations upcoming contract anticipation members in newsletter a union decided to distribute petitioner, with di The newsletter was employees.2 petitioner’s production urged and fourth sections into The first vided four sections. and, union more participate in the support sec solidarity. The of union generally, extolled benefits legislators employees to write encouraged ond section statute into “right-to-work” oppose incorporation the state warning consideration, under a revised constitution then state andimprov[e] Unions incorporation would “weake[n] third section table.” The bargaining has edge business in a bill to had vetoed recently noted the President *4 per hour, to $1.60 $2.00 from wage the federal minimum crease profits in prices and compared this to increase action admonished: policies, and industry oil under administration and our enemies we defeat “As men and women must working (Vernon 5207a, §1; 5154g, Art. Ann., Art. 1Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. §2 1971). 2 negotiations, going into president 801 testified: “We were The of Local stronger group. trying reorganize group into a to our and ... we was [sic] members, get people working there who were trying that were were to We try our non-members, strengthen motivate or the conviction to organize App. a 11. members, to little.” and it was you elect our friends. If haven’t registered please to do vote, so today.” On March 26, 1974, Hugh Terry, employee petitioner an president vice peti Local asked Herbert George, personnel tioner’s for director, permission assistant to distribute employees alley” to newsletter the “clock to leads petitioner’s time clocks.4 George manage doubted whether ment employees would allow like propaganda “hand out that,” agreed superiors. but to check with his Menius, Leonard petitioner’s personnel petitioner confirmed director, would employees allow to distribute the newsletter in clock alley. A days George few later communicated this decision Terry, but gave no for reasons it.
On April 22, 1974, Boyd Young, president 801,5 of Local together with Terry and another employee, George asked whether employees could any distribute newsletter nonworking areas of property other clock than alley.6 After conferring again with Menius, reported George reprinted appendix opinion. newsletter is an in full as to this Judge alley” Administrative Law passage described “clock “a way 6 or 7 wide, feet flanked on either side administrative offices. clocks, addition time employee the area contains bulletin board benches and waiting chairs for those to transact in the business offices. alley physically production Clock discrete from the plant.” areas of the 215 N. L. R. B. 273 n. 5 Young, longtime employee petitioner, was on leave to serve as president of Local 801. testified Young “permission that he had asked employees for Company to be allowed to hours, distribute non-working this on on non-production areas, specifically alley; outside the clock and if that posed problem, any willing area we move would area convenient Company, out guardhouse end walk parldng lot, or only we would hand it out leaving plant, and where problem wouldn't cause a litter plant.” App. 8-9. The Adminis Judge Young's testimony trative Law credited request to distribute the newsletter. B., 215 N. R. L. 273 n. 9.
561 peti- employees would not allowed to do so and that that ways the union other communicate with thought tioner had practice employees. charge Local 801 then filed an unfair alleging with the Board (Board), National Labor Relations petitioner’s refusal to distribute to allow during property in nonworking newsletter areas of coerced em- nonworking restrained, time interfered with, (a) (1).7 rights of in violation of 8 ployees’ § § 7 exercise he had no hearing on Menius testified that charge, At objection the newsletter. first and fourth sections of the newsletter because permission He had denied distribute and third sections see second any way he “didn’t which [the App. 19. related our association with the Union.” were] of although held not all Judge Administrative Law relationship on between had bearing newsletter immediate was contents its petitioner and Local distribution all “mutual aid 7 protected § under as concerted presented had petitioner Because employees. on the justify a ban “special no circumstances” evidence nonworking by employees matter protected distribution Judge Law nonworking the Administrative during time, areas peti- ordered (a)(1) § had petitioner held violated Board from the and desist violation.8 tioner cease with, interfere practice “to (a) (1) makes it unfair labor an Section rights guaranteed in” of the restrain, employees in the exercise or coerce the Act. presented, the had been “special circumstances” no evidence of Because channels alternative Judge did not consider whether Administrative Law B., at 275 n. 13. R. 215 N. L. 801. communication were to Local available second of the distribution if alternative, judge held that even In the 7, distribu was not third of the newsletter sections relying Id., protected. tion newsletter as whole Corp., 206 N. R. Samsonite L. B. petitioner maintained Judge held Law also The Administrative did B., Petitioner L. at 272. 215 N. R. rule. overbroad no-solieitation *6 562 Judge’s
affirmed the Law Administrative rulings, findings, and conclusions, adopted his recommended order. 215 L. R. B. 271 (1974). N. Court Appeals enforced order. 550 198 F. 2d
(CA5 1977). rejected petitioner’s argument It that “mutual aid protection” protects or 7 § clause of con- activity by certed is conditions directed at their employer authority change has or or power control. expressing opinion range Without an as to the full rights 7 employer’s “when exercised off property,” F. 2d, purported rights at the court 202, balance those against employer’s rights property and concluded that is reasonably employees’ jobs “whatever to the or related or status condition as plant may be the subject of such handouts as we treat distributed on here, plant premises in such a manner not to interfere with Id., . (emphasis original). work . .” at 203 . further court held all of the in the material newsletter Id., here met this at test. 204-205.9 apparent
Because of
among
differences
Appeals
Courts of
scope
as to the
of rights protected by the “mutual
aid
7,
17, infra,
clause of
see n.
granted
we
certiorari.
U. S. 1045
We affirm.
rely
not
on this rule
refusing
newsletter,
to allow distribution of the
see
id.,
validity
n.
and its
was not an
of Appeals,
issue in the Court
2d 198,
(CA5 1977).
see 550 F.
201 n. 3
That rule is not before
See
us.
Brief for Petitioner 5 n. 2.
9The court went
disapprove
ground
on to
the alternative
for the Board's
supra,
decision,
see n.
stating
presence
protected
that “the
of some §
material will not
significantly
protected.”
rescue that which is
550 F.
2d,
necessary
at 205.
doWe
not find it
express
opinion
as to the
correctness
opinion
statement.
denying rehearing
In an
rehearing
banc,
en
the court
employer’s
reaffirmed that it had balanced the
employees’ rights,
opinion
and it deleted two
references
its first
the First
(CA5 1977).
Amendment.
II Two questions presented. distinct are The first is whether, apart from the activity, location distribution of the newsletter is the kind of concerted from employer interference §§ 8(a)(1) National Labor If Relations Act. is, the second then. *7 question is whether fact activity place that takes petitioner’s property gives rise to a that countervailing interest outweighs the exercise of 7 rights in § location. See Hudgens NLRB, v. 424 U. S. 521-523 Central 507, (1976); Hardware Co. v. 407 U. S. 542-545 NLRB 539, (1972); Co., v. Babcock & Wilcox 351 U. S. 112 105, (1956); Corp. NLRB, Aviation 324 U. S. 797-798 We 793, address questions these in turn.
A provides Section 7 “[e]mployees shall have right ... in . engage . . pur- concerted activities for the pose of collective bargaining or other mutual protec- aid or tion . . . Petitioner activity contends that the not here is within the or protection” “mutual aid does language because it not “specific relate to a dispute” employees between and their employer own “over an issue which the employer right has the power or to affect.” Brief for Petitioner support 13. of its position, petitioner “employees” asserts that the term in § only refers of particular employer, so that activity by employees on em- behalf themselves or other 7, amended, Section as as set forth in 29 U. S. C. in full: states §
“Employees right self-organize, form, shall have the join, assist or collectively labor organizations, bargain through representatives of their choosing, engage own and to purpose in other concerted activities for the bargaining protection, collective or other aid also mutual or and shall right any except have to refrain from all or of such activities right may extent by requiring that such agreement affected an member- ship organization in a employment labor as a condition of as authorized (a) (3) section 158 of this title [29].” Id., same
ployees protected. is 24. argues Petitioner also that the term “collective bargaining” 7 “indicates a direct bargaining relationship § whereas 'other protection’ mutual aid or must refer to activities of a similar Id., nature . . .” in petitioner’s . at 24. Thus, view, § under employee only protected activity scope “the within the Id., employment relationship.” rejects at 13. Petitioner 7 might protect activity the idea that could be any discharge characterized “political,” suggests employee who such engages any would violate the Act.11 petitioner
We believe that misconceives the reach of “mutual “employees” aid clause. The who engage activities for protec- concerted “mutual aid or tion” are defined (3) Act, (3), 29 U. C. 152§ any employee, “include and shall not be limited to particular of a employer, subchapter unless this explicitly states otherwise . . .” This definition intended . *8 protect employees they engage when proper otherwise concerted in support activities of employees employers of other than their own.12 of recognition intent, this Board and long the courts have held that “mutual aid or protection” encompasses activity.13 clause such Petitioner’s
11 Arg. See Tr. of Oral 17:
“QUESTION: [Suppose banding together they Union is all the] oppose right-to-work want to laws, they pass out literature out on the public street; just says, you and the T getting don't like fellows business, you.’ into this kind going of I’m to fire “Now, is practice? that an unfair labor “MR. Honor, ABERCROMBIE: Your we would submit it was
not, political is not under Section 7.” 12 Phelps Dodge Corp. See NLRB, 177, v. 313 U. S. 191-192 (1941); Rep. 573, Cong., No. 74th Sess., 1st 6 (1935); Rep. H. 1147, R. No. 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 9-10 13 g., Wayne E. Corrugated Fort Paper NLRB, Co. 869, v. 111 F. 2d 874 Cayuga (CA7 1940), Linen & enf’g Mills, Gotten Inc., 1, 11 N. L. R. B.
565 argument point ignores language on this of the Act and its settled construction.
We also find no warrant for
view that
protection
lose their
under the
or protection”
“mutual aid
clause
improve
when
seek to
they
employ-
terms and conditions of
ment
improve
or otherwise
their lot
through
channels outside the immediate employee-employer
relation-
ship. The 74th Congress
enough
knew well
cause
labor’s
often is
advanced
fronts other
bargaining
than collective
grievance settlement
employment
within
immediate
con-
It
text.
recognized
fact
as the
choosing,
language
7
clear,
protect
§ makes
concerted activities for the some-
what
purpose
broader
“mutual aid or
as well as
for the
purposes
narrower
of “self-organization” and “collective
bargaining.”14 Thus, it has been held
“mutual aid
(1939) (right
4-5
organizing
employer’s employees);
to assist in
another
Co.,
NLRB
v. J. G. Boswell
(CA9
585,
1943), enf’g
136 F. 2d
595
35
(1941) (right
express sympathy
N. L. R. B. 968
striking employees
Redwing
Inc.,
Carriers,
employer);
1545,
another
137 N. L. R. B.
enf’d sub nom.
(1962),
Teamsters 1546-1547
App.
117 U. S.
(1963),
D. C.
1011
84,
denied,
(1964) (right
325 F. 2d
cert.
employers
working
when
seek to
forums,15
and
and
through
judicial
resort
administrative
appeals
their interests
protect
employees’
legislators
scope
within
of this
To hold
are
clause.16
entirely unprotected
irrespective
of
nature is
activity
—
of
employed
location or the means
leave
—would
Sess.,
1147,
Sess.,
(1935).
(1935);
Rep.
Cong.,
9
H. R.
74th
15
No.
1st
Congress’
expresses
recognition
This section of the Norris-LaGuardia Act
questions
“right
wage
organize
jointly
and
of
earners to
to act
generally
affecting wages,
labor,
conditions of
labor
...
welfare of
Rep.
Cong.,
Sess.,
(1932)
(emphasis
163,
supplied).
No.
72d
1st
9
S.
(a)
Recovery
language
(1)
Similar
found in 7
the National Industrial
§
1933,
198;
Act,
Act
48 Stat.
1 of
National Labor Relations
§
(declaration
policy);
(a)
49
IT.
2
449, 29
C.
151
Stat.
S.
1959,
519,
the Labor-Management Reporting
73
and Disclosure Act of
Stat.
(a)
29
(findings, purposes,
policy).
TJ.S. C.
401§
g.,
Mfg. Co.,
enf’d,
15 E.
(1962),
Walls
137
L. R. B. 1317
116
N.
U. S.
App.
140,
753,
denied,
(1963); Socony
D. C.
321 F. 2d
cert.
567
could
activity that
legitimate
for much
open to retaliation
the
As this could “frustrate
employees.
lot as
improve their
workers to act
right of
protect
the
of the Act
policy
NLRB
conditions,”
v.
working
to better
together
(1962),
we do
Co.,
9,
Aluminum
U. S.
Washington
of 7
protection
§
the
could have intended
Congress
think
petitioner insists.17
narrow as
to be as
activity bears a
concerted
that some
course;
true,
It is
employees’
interests
relationship
immediate
less
point
some
assume that at
mayWe
activity.
such
than other
narrowly
7 more
construe
cases said to
upon several
§
Petitioner relies
(CA6 1975),
Co.,
the “mutual F. 2d 873 Specialty Electric Co. G&W leaves This because the concerted Board order 1966), to enforce a (CA7 which refused management of an concerning petition activity of a there —circulation upon request any action no employee-run union —“involved credit the Com- which a matter over Company did not concern part of the cannot becomes so that an relationship attenuated *11 the or fairly protection” to come within “mutual aid be deemed necessary nor for us appropriate, however, It is neither clause. precisely the boundaries of “mutual attempt to delineate the perform clause. That task is for Board to aid or variety in first instance as it considers the wide of cases NLRB, 324 Corp. before it.18 Aviation v. that come Dodge NLRB, 313 798; Phelps Corp. 177, U. S.,U. at v. case, enough To decide this it is to determine (1941). 194 in holding whether Board erred distribution of the purpose third sections of the newsletter is for second and protection.” of “mutual aid or
pany Id., authority had control.” at 876. G&W Electric cites no> for 7, narrowing ignores weight authority its a substantial including prior contrary, the Seventh Circuit’s own in Fort holding Wayne Corrugated Paper 2d, 13, Co. 111 F. 874. See n. supra. any persuasive therefore do not We view these cases as authority petitioner’s position. 18 Co., 663, enf’d, Ford Motor 221 L. B. (1975), See N. R. (CA3 1976) (holding employer’s premises F. 2d 418 distribution on of a political unprotected “purely though any tract” even “the election of may political employment candidate have an ultimate effect on condi tions”); (Rouge Complex), Ford Motor Co. cf. L. R. N. B. (1977) (decision (concession of Administrative Law of General Judge) employer’s premises Counsel that distributions on urging of literature participation Revolutionary Party Party’s Communist celebration, and of newspaper, unprotected). yet were The Board has not made clear whether it considers distributions like those unpro to be above-cited cases altogether, employer’s premises. tected on the addition, activity concerted even when comes scope within the of the protection” clause, may “mutual aid or the forms permissibly such depend object activity. take well argument “The employer’s legitimate lack of interest or control affords a basis for subject holding that a does not come protection’ within ‘mutual aid or is unconvincing. argument pressure unprotected that economic should be convincing.” more Getman, in such cases is The Protection of Economic Act, Pressure Section 7 of the National Labor 115 U. Pa. L. Relations Rev. The Board determined that distribution of the second section, urging employees oppose to write legislators incorporation of “right-to-work” statute into a revised state state constitution, security union because “central concept to the union of strength through solidarity” and “a mandatory subject of bargaining right-to- other than work states.” 215 N. R. warned B., L. at 274. The newsletter that incorporation employees adversely “by could affect weak- ening Unions and improving edge business has at bargaining already “right- table.” The fact that Texas has to-work” statute employees’ does render interest any matter less strong, for, Appeals as the Court of noted, *12 thing a statutory open “one to face scheme which is legislative repeal” “quite thing modification or another prospect face such a scheme will frozen in a concrete constitutional mandate.” F. 2d, at 205. We say cannot that the Board erred in this holding that section of bears such relation employees’ newsletter interests as to come within guarantee protection” of the “mutual aid or clause. cases cited in 16, supra. See n.
The Board held that distribution of the third section, criticizing a Presidential veto an increase in the federal minimum wage and urging employees register vote to “defeat our enemies elect friends,” protected our despite fact petitioner’s paid employees were more than the wage. vetoed minimum It reasoned that the “mini- mum wage inevitably wage influences levels derived from bargaining, collective even those far above the minimum,” [petitioner’s] “concern employees plight other might support for gain them at some future they time when might dispute employer.” have a with their B., (internal L. R. N. at 274 quotation omitted). marks We think that the Board acted within the of its discre- range tion in so holding. Few are of such immediate concern topics to employees as the wages. level Board was impact that a rise in the widely recognized entitled to note negotiated wages may have on the level of wage minimum not been phenomenon would have lost generally,19 in the circumstances petitioner's employees. call, The union’s support who persons for these to back case, those who oppose in the minimum and to wage, an increase activity for fairly as concerted oppose it, is characterized employees and protection” petitioner’s “mutual aid or employees generally. both and the sum,
In we hold that distribution of the second sections of newsletter is under the “mutual third clause of 7.20 aid
B Board erred question that remains is whether the news petitioner’s employees may distribute holding that property during in nonworking letter areas of begin of this issue must with nonworking time. Consideration Corp. Aviation decisions in Court’s Co., NLRB Wilcox supra, v. Babcock & S. 105 U. Republic Aviation the Court upheld the Board’s employer may prohibit employees from ruling that an its Chamberlain, (1958); Reynolds, See N. Labor 435-437 L. Labor *13 1970). (5th Economics and Labor ed. Relations argues “right wage that the minimum Petitioner to work” and issues “political,” advancing political are and that a union’s is not views by every by political, can be some 7. As almost issue viewed as the clear purpose “mutual aid or the clause would be if the frustrated speech protection mere characterization of conduct or removed it from the 16, swpra. Moreover, may the Act. See cases cited in n. what be political quite differently as in one can viewed context be viewed may speech types another. There well be of conduct or so that are purely political remotely employees or so to the connected concerns of employees beyond protection as to be the of the clause. But this is a case-by-case that should left for determination consideration. Cf. cases 18, supra. cited in n. nonworking organizational union literature
distributing working non absent property during time, industrial areas its necessary to main- employer a ban is showing by the ruling obtained discipline production. This plant tain shown distribution though employees the had not even S., property would be ineffective. U. employer’s off the In reached view, the Court’s the Board had 798-799, 801. at right “adjustment undisputed an the acceptable between Act Wagner self-organization employees assured to under the maintain undisputed right employers equally the and Id., at establishments.” 797-798.21 discipline Wilcox, on other hand, nonemployees In & Babcock employer’s union an distribute sought property enter applied The Board the rule of literature. organizational situation, in this but Court held that Aviation “of of law substance” between “rules there is a distinction applicable those to nonem- employees to- applicable at 113. The difference was that ployees.” S., 351 U. & Wilcox on the sought trespass in Babcock nonemployees Avia- employees in Republic whereas employer’s property, Striking a balance between 7 organizational tion did not. right keep entering from employer’s strangers rights & held in Babcock the Court property, on its prevent “nonemployee distribution Wilcox was entitled if property] reasonable efforts union literature its [on will available channels of communication other through union . . .” employees message with its . it to reach enable recently emphasized distinc- Id., The Court has 112. “A wholly two cases: balance different tion between Republic Aviation the Court also upheld rulings that Board employer’s join may other a union on solicit may insignia on nonworking time, union during wear property distribu distinguished between employer’s property. The Board has since not the but solicitation, holding oral the latter that- tions of literature nonworking time. place during working areas take former Stoddard-Quirk Mfg. Co., 138 N. L. R. B. *14 organizational activity struck when the on was carried by rightfully already employer’s property, on the since the employer’s management property interests rather than his Hudgens NLRB, interests were there involved.” S., v. 424 U. at n. 10; see also Central Hardware Co. 521-522, S., at U. 543-545. It is apparent Republic instant case resembles Aviation rather closely. Here, sought as there, employees in nonworking distribute literature in- employer’s areas property dustrial during nonworking as there, time. Here, employer has not attempted to show distribution would interfere plant discipline with or production. And here, there, clearly distribution newsletter would be by 7 against employer discipline if took place off employer’s property. only possible ground of distinction is part the newsletter this case does not address purely organizational matters, but rather other activ- concerns ity protected by § 7. question, then, whether required difference Board to apply a different rule here applied Republic than it Aviation.
Petitioner contends that the Board must distinguish among of protected distributions matter by employees employ- on er’s on property the basis of the content of each distribution. Echoing its earlier argument, petitioner urges that the Aviation rule should be applied not if distribution “does not request any involve a part action on employer, or does not concern a matter over which the any has degree of control . . peti- . .” Brief for 28. Petitioner In tioner’s view, distribution of any matter protected by other 7§ would be an “unnecessary intrusio employer’s [n] id., property rights,” absence showing employees that no alternative channels of communication with fellow are available.
We hold required Board to adopt this view case at hand. first place, reliance on *15 Republic inas misplaced. Here, is property right largely its on the Aviation, “already rightfully employees are petitioner’s is of this case it in context so that employer’s property,” prop- than interests rather “employer’s management [its] supra, Hudgens, implicated. erty primarily interests” are attempt made no already petitioner noted, 10. As 521-522, at n. in prejudiced be would that its interests management to show by its rights proposed way the exercise of any by of material Even if the mere distribution here. property intrude on by 7 can be said to protected does of intrusion any meaningful sense, degree in rights only material. Petitioner’s vary not with the content em- preventing in respect in this property right cognizable distrib- property onto its ployees bringing from literature distributions choosing in which uting it there —not suppress.22 7 it wishes to by § argued that the be balance, thé other side of the
On with that deals in literature employees’ distributing interest self- but not with employees, them affecting matters from the removed bargaining, is so organization collective of a application justify concerns of Act as to central such an Republic Aviation. Although in different rule than Hudgens, circumstances, see argument may have some force not has chosen supra, generally Board to date 522, the the distribution regarding rules engage such refinement of its by petitioner for the proposed addition, we doubt whether the test Republic Aviation squared with property rights be protection of its can “involve a did not itself, in that case organizational literature for the . employer, or . . concern request part any action any degree of control.” employer matter over which [had] premises of the sure, distributed on To be if the material interruption or other inflammatory point threatening disorder were to the noted in exception functioning business, of the normal production would discipline or respect interference with Aviation with Co., B. Mfg. L. R. fully & N. applicable. be See Procter Gamble by employees of literature during nonworking time in non- working employers’ property. areas not We are prepared say this case that the Board erred the view it took. is apparent
It
that the
rules and
complexity
the Board’s
difficulty
might
compounded
the Board’s task
greatly
if
required
distinguish
it were
literature
between
*16
is within and
protection
without
but also
7,§
among
In
subcategories
protection.
within
literature
addition,
strength
whatever the
7
employees’ §
interest
in distributing particular
the Board is entitled
literature,
view the
by employees
intrusion
property rights
of their
quite
as
limited in this
long
employ-
context as
as the
management
er’s
protected.
interests are
adequately
Board
may
also properly
plant
take into account the
is
fact that
particularly
place for
appropriate
the distribution of
7§
material, because it “is the one place
[employees]
where
clearly
common
they traditionally
share
interests and where
to persuade
seek
fellow
affecting
workers
matters
their
organizational
union
life and other matters related
their
Products,
Gale
employees.”
status as
142
N. L.
B.R.
(1963).
We need not
so far in this
go
case,
to hold that
however, Republic
Aviation
properly
applied
every in-plant
rule
is
distribution
literature that
protective
falls within the
ambit
of 7. This
is a
for
new area
Board and the
which
courts
yet
has not
received mature consideration.23 It
be that
23In
ease,
addition to the instant
the Board has extended the rule of
encompass
Aviation to a limited
nonorganizational
extent
complaining
literature
about an incumbent
leadership
union’s
or bargaining
position.
Corp.,
Samsonite
(1973);
206 N.
R.
L.
B. 343
McDonnell
Douglas Corp.,
(1974);
210 N.
R.
Corp.,
B.
General
L.
Motors
Singer Co.,
(1974);
N.
B. 133
(1975);
L. R.
220 N. L. R.
B.
Co., 221
Ford Motor
(1975), enf’d,
(CA3
N. L. R. B. 663
Petitioner concedes that its prop- newsletter on portion of distribute a substantial the sections to above, as we have held erty. addition, concern which objected petitioner, petitioner which own,- of its is countervailing of a interest absence petitioner attempt no show suppress. entitled to Yet made prejudiced any interests would management its any in our view sections, distribution of these manner from property rights incremental intrusion on be minimal. together the other sections would distribution with union undertook Moreover, undisputed improve its support distribution order to boost its *17 contract with position negotiations bargaining upcoming the distribution was Thus, context, viewed petitioner. Act.24 these circum- closely to vital the tied concerns employers to who were on strike aiid support of other “to Cab, alleged Inc., Yellow oppose antilabor combination.” distribution of B., hand, it has not allowed L. at 569. On the other N. R. employers’ the “purely political” premises, even when material material supra. scope This might arguably of 7. n. Court be within the See Republic Avia- already extension of the approved has the Board’s limited by the of literature dissident tion rule to cover distribution Magnavox Co., NLRB v. advocating displacement union. See part J., concurring in (1974); id., at 327 415 U. (Stewaet, part). dissenting in legitimate and to “Unions have a As we had occasion state: have recognition. continuing organizational after efforts interest substantial majority, merely strengthen preserve the union’s is goal Whether membership particularly substantial employee or is achieve 100% —a they security permitted, agreements are not as where union union concern equally organizing efforts are entitled not here . .—these are . hold stances, we applying Board did not err in Aviation rule to the facts judgment of this case. of Appeals therefore Court
Affirmed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT NEWS TO BULLETIN LOCAL 801 MEMBERS FROM BOYD YOUNG —PRESIDENT WE NEED YOU
As a need member, you help we build the Union through your support and understanding. often Too members become upon disinterested and look their Union being something separate from Nothing themselves. could be further from truth.
This Union or any Union only good will be as as members it. policies make practices of this Union are made membership active membership. If this Union has —the ever missed its target enough because not members made views known where the final decisions are made— The Union Meeting. impossible
It would be satisfy everyone with the decisions that are made but the active member opportunity has the bring majority around his way thinking. This is a democratic how organization works it’s system the best around.
Through participation you your can make voice felt not but throughout this Local the International Union. A PHONY “right to work" LABEL —
Wages are determined bargaining table and the *18 stronger the Union, the better for opportunity improve- ments. to “right The work” an simply attempt law is weaken the strength of Unions. The misleading title protection ... Letter Austin, .” Carriers v. 418 U. anyone job. simply cannot It to work”
“right guarantee provi- by outlawing of Unions negotiating power weakens the and modified shops, agency shops, for sions contracts Union improve wages working shops. These do not laws Union people riders are just protect free riders. Free conditions but dues. paying take who all the benefits Unions without They organiza- ride on dues members to build pay At way life. protect rights improve their tion their and attempt financed very organized time there is a well in our new state constitution. place “right work” law namely, by big This drive financed supported business, is the National Right-To-Work Committee and National it will attempt successful, If is Chamber of Commerce. improving than for itself pay by weakening more Unions States edge bargaining business has at the table. wages higher no have “right-to-work” consistently have law its for better conditions. Texas is well known working concerning working “right-to- weak laws class and If take injury. you fail to work” law add insult would inup well show against “right-to-work” action law it may I every member to write wages negotiated urge in the future. “right-to- protest their state senator congressman and into constitution. incorporated work” law the state being and let your representative and senator Write state state delegate how you know feel. AND INFLATION
POLITICS HR President Wage Minimum was vetoed Bill, inflationary. Nixon. The President termed the bill as present would hour most per $1.60 $2.00 bill raise the covered workers.
It seems could term almost unbelievable the President per inflationary and at $2.00 hour as the same remain time companies profits about oil from ranging silent 56% 280%. It also seems that after has disturbing, price gasoline increased to over 50 cents a the fuel gallon, that crisis *19 beginning disappear. If price gasoline ever reaches 70 cents gallon you probably couldn’t find filling a closed or empty pump station Hemisphere. the Northern Congress pr[o]ceeding is now wage with a second minimum bill hopefully sign the President will At $1.60 into law. per you hour could work 40 week, hours a 52 weeks a year enough money support never earn family.
As men working and women we must our defeat enemies and our If elect friends. you registered please haven’t do vote, today. so
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
In Union there is strength, moderation; justice, and nothing disunion, alternating humility but an and insolence. COMING TOGETHER AWAS BEGINNING STAYING TOGETHER IS PROGRESS WORKING TOGETHER MEANS SUCCESS THE PERSON WHO NEUTRAL, STANDS STANDS
FOR NOTHING!
Mr. Justice White, concurring.
IAs understand the record in this case, the issue before Judge Administrative Law and before the Board was activity whether the engaged here the employees activity protected by the kind of 7§ of the National Labor Relations Act. The Administrative Law Judge held that the circulars were related to encompassed by matters 7 and noted that there had been no attempt evidence to show even though the distributions were 7 activity, there were never- theless permitted circumstances to forbid on his property. distributions The Board adopted the report of the Judge. Administrative Law
I agree the employees here were engaged protected by 7,§ at least in the sense that the employer could discharge employees propagandizing their fellow work- ers with materials concerning minimum wages right-to- place off the distribution so as the takes laws, long
work *20 I current under law employer's property. further that agree could record, this the distributions the facts and claims in and the Accordingly, place employer’s property. on the take I the join and to its order enforced Board was entitled have opinion of Court. judgment and the why easy explain, I to that it is doing so, say should to for distribu- be used permit property need his employer with his relationship his subjects about unrelated to tions for the latter use it is convenient employees simply because is no there simply in this manner and because property his Ownership of “management with interests.” interference the control use normally right confers the property the by no the finding Board Here there was property. connected with the to be distributed was sought literature I requires federal law relationship; doubt that bargaining and property to be used always permit his employer the even by having protection, and distributions solicitations during non- nonworking areas among concern might goals working times. distributions Such whole, as well force, his work considered as about which ends may with which he have deeply divided, public, the bemay which he would whatsoever, in connection with sympathy or no supports one side or the that he it inferred not care have would record, the if these, All of substantiated other. balance weighed to be substantial factors appear has violated determining whether when with his concerning relationship his strictures Act’s Labor employees. Ius, content record before am be, on the may
However Appeals. Court judgment affirm the with whom Chief Justice Rehnquist, Me. Justice dissenting. joins, “mutual scope necessary to determine is not
It
Rela-
Labor
language
§of
National
aid
tions
Congress
Act to conclude that
never
require
intended to
private
opening
property to
political
the sort of
ad-
vocacy
involved
this case. Petitioner’s right
property
as a
owner
prescribe
strangers
the conditions
which
under
“
enter its property
fully
recognized under
law.
‘A
Texas
goes
licensee
beyond
who
rights
privileges
granted by
”
trespasser.’
license becomes a
Burton Construction &
Broussard,
Shipbuilding Co. v.
50, 58,
154 Tex.
273 S. W.
(1954)
(citation
2d
Brown
omitted).
See
also
Dellinger,
(Tex.
From its construing earliest cases National Labor Rela- tions recognized weight employer’s Act the Court has of property rights, rights protected from explicitly which are by federal interference the Fifth Consti- Amendment to the given tution. The Court has not been in quick conclude Congress instance displacement has authorized the of by federally those rights employees. of rights created In NLRB Metallurgical v. Fansteel Corp., 306 U. S. (1939), construing another section of the this Court Act, dealt with the Board’s efforts to compel the reinstatement of who had been after discharged violating their strike. by a sitdown
employer’s property rights engaging Hughes Chief wrote the Court: Mr. Justice intended to Congress are unable to conclude that “We re- employ persons compel employers retain who those gardless conduct, their unlawful invest of —to discharge for acts immunity from go on strike with an employer’s property, trespass of or violence against they remained they enjoyed which had would have Apart question from constitutional at work. say enough to validity of that it is sort, of an enactment be found in some legislative intention should that such no such expression. find definite unmistakable We Id., 255. provision.” at in the cited expression id., An part). concurring J., at (Stone, See also way give only where neces- employer’s property rights must Act: “to safe- sary purposes the central effectuate bargaining, rights self-organization and collective guard the peace to remove ob- promotion of industrial and thus defined in the Act.” free commerce as structions to the flow Id., 257. again recognized six self-organization were rights
Those Corp. 324 U. Aviation years later held author Congress Court had (1945). There, employers *22 property displace rights the ized the Board to to rights the of necessary to accommodate where union and to wear organizational union literature distribute Co., Babcock & Wilcox NLRB v. In U. S. insignia. nonemployees could also recognized the Court (1956), held that but it membership, to solicit union right invoke this property employer’s authority to the displace the Board’s Later, extremely limited.1 in circumstances rights such contrary notwithstanding, Babcock the both to 1The Court’s assertion “trespass case, em Aviation, a like this involved and sought to over- ante, 571, in that union members at ployer’s property,” NLRB, in the Court Central Hardware Co. v. 407 U. S. (1972), explained the limited nature of upon the intrusion property permitted by rights Babcock: of principle
“The Babcock is limited to accommoda- this organization tion between rights property rights. principle This requires 'yielding’ property of rights only in an organization campaign. the context of More- over, rights intrusion on property allowed limited necessary employees’ facilitate exercise 7 rights. requisite After the need for the em- access to ployer’s property has been shown, access is limited (ii) nonworking union (i) organizers; prescribed areas employer’s premises; (iii) of organi- the duration activity. zation principle of short, the accommoda- tion in organiza- announced Babcock is limited labor tion campaigns 'yielding’ property rights it may require temporary is both and minimal.” 407 U. S., at 544-545.2 employer’s right
ride prescribe entry prop- to its conditions of erty. accept implications It Hudgens cannot the dictum in v. NLRB, 507, 521-522, (1976), may 424 U. n. 10 which turn be traced portion opinion quoted Republic Aviation, back to that Board’s S., 803-804, constitutionally may U. protected right n. that this disregarded be by are simply characterizing where it involved “management property right has a interes[t].” under Texas law to property decide not who come on shall his but also the complied be conditions which must with to remain there. The fact right may governmental be subordinated various enactments property right. makes no less a 2 1 rights” do not read the reference Central Hardware to as a 7“§
suggestion rights protected that all under that section allowed upon employer’s property rights. intrude paragraph rest clearly application organization rights, limits its and the Court in a later suggested might case that distinctions be drawn between “lawful economic activity” “organizational activity,” strike both of which are Hudgens rights supra, under 7. at 522. Term, Earlier this Sears, & Carpenters, Roebuck Co. v. (1978), U. S. 180 the Court *23 today in which it ever held The cites no case has Court employee nonemployee, or a has a whether an anyone, organiza- anything other than protected right engage to simple ques- activity employer’s property. on an tional the has authorized Board Congress before us is whether tion on distribution right prevent to employer’s an displace to over which political concerning material matters property his ques- eschewing any analysis In he no control.3 has Board, supposed expertise tion, deference “ cer- which is rights” ‘yielding’ property permits Court I conclude that cannot tainly “temporary”; not as can be dismissed right property of such a deprivation under Congress power may It be that has “minimal.” property his open require Clause to Commerce Congress so, intended do if political advocacy, but, to such some definite should be found in legislative intention “such Fansteel, S.,U. at 255. expression.” unmistakable I permit expression Act, would no such Finding political right to exclude away petitioner’s to balance Board property. literature from its Appeals. Court judgment
I would reverse circum- might protected in some trespassory picketing be conceded that picketing assumption that “Even on stances, but went on state: in the Babcock same deference is entitled to the area standards enforce unpro- solicitation, be it would analysis organizational as accommodation holding omitted). Id,., at 206 (footnote No instances.” in most tected protected. trespass such a ever found Court has of this by some every can viewed issue be complaint that “almost Court’s ante, markedly its earlier assur with n. contrasts political,” at 570 drawn context, distinctions ance, that “common-sense” in another speech. Ohralik Ohio State political speech and commercial between any case, Assn., there is little Bar U. 455-456 power affect employer has the determining difficulty in whether complain. not, he there does Where of which his matters those advocacy his even property, require permit such him is no reason to committed if arguably be under might though such elsewhere.