Opinion

National Labor Relations Board v. Monsanto Chemical Company

  • 225 F.2d 16
  • 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2506
  • 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Jul 27, 1955
Status
Published
Author
Healy
On the bench
Stephens, Healy, Pope
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

HEALY, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

It is implicit in the majority opinion that had the distributors of union literature been employees of respondent, then enforcement as against them of respondent’s prohibitory rule would amount to an unfair labor practice. To me, the principle involved is the same whether the distributors were employees furthering the cause of unionization, or whether *22 they were merely union representatives having the same purpose. In either event the distributors would be pursuing the same end, namely, to advise the workers at the plant of their rights under the Act and of the purported advantages of unionization.

I think the Board’s order is supported in law and that a decree of enforcement should be entered.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.