Opinion

National Labor Relations Board v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company

  • 277 F.2d 759
  • 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2055
  • 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4731
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Apr 26, 1960
Status
Published
Author
Jones
On the bench
Jones, Tuttle, Brown
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.7%

The opinion

JONES, Circuit Judge

(dissenting in part).

By the opinion of the majority it is held that, although the employer may forbid union solicitation of one employee by another on working time in a work area, the employer cannot prohibit what is called “simple exchange of information” among employees. How a determination is to be made and by whom it is to be made as to what is solicitation and what is simple exchange of information is not indicated. Since, as is stated, the employer “may expect full and undiverted attention to its affairs while the employee is actively at the post of his duties,” it seems to me that the employer should be permitted to forbid union activity by its employees in working areas during working time whether such activity be called solicitation or be called simple exchange of information.

It does not appear to me that the record calls for the so-called catchall clause and I do not think there should be any enforcement of it. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 418 .

On the other matters decided, I am in agreement with the majority.

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.