# National Labor Relations Board v. Monsanto Chemical Company

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 27, 1955 · 225 F.2d 16

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444717

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 27, 1955
- **Citations:** 225 F.2d 16; 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2506; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4563
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Healy
- **Judges:** Stephens, Healy, Pope
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444717

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444717. Public record. Not legal advice.