# Brief for the Petitioner — Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386404_0147%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Petitioner - **Published:** January 1, 1945 - **Citation:** 324 U.S. 793 ## Text — | ~. . ae ror ete te ot en ne ’ . naan nae eet wee el la aang eam . ~ ' . ‘ : 3 « > . * : : a - - & f ‘ 5 : ‘ , Pt ye Aes aa © * . = ; : i . ; : ~ - 7 = ¢ . ¢ . * : : , ‘ a ; ar) , * : : ; be : 4 ’ . . .] ‘ 3 ‘2, e. . e 4 —— oot ee. -* % ‘ ‘ * ¢ , 7 ; as , ; ° . . . - 3 re , i . a ’ - rh) : : ; p .: a ’ . e . ‘ : A ; : : “ e@ ~ 1 ° . e ” . . . . ; Mi . ys 6, “9 ‘ ’ y d : : on ee : ¢ » : Ad | ros * ° e : =s . . i Sa . : : ; > an : 7 - : ‘ ° e ‘ ‘ Ww ‘ a ; : - rt . . ‘ 5 : : . ‘ ’ é . s . : 4 « = ri 2 ‘ e . . ‘ ; > Ps ¢ ‘ i 7 & ~ ss . ~ . ae : . * j . . o- ‘ = : . ; i : . . E : ; 3 ‘ . % S “ aa * ad / : ¥ f Y te SS are are cd be 3 2 : a e | . . 7 . . e : j ’ : . ; ’ . . ‘ " ; 6 ‘ - . » . . % 5 od . * : . = ' i . ‘ — ) Q-- : f : - ‘ ~ e = . . . . : : 3 . « ‘ . .- x ; ' . . , he ‘ . > . ’ o ‘ gt ’ “ ‘ o 5 : . PS . « ° 4 ’ "a ‘ ; 3 “ ‘ 4 2 . . ’ ¢ “i " ry e * . - : furs ae : - : NATIO: 7° Laror oon raxe Bn . hay en ies NATIONAL LABOR WPLATIONS PCSARD,:- PETAVIONER |: dike Se prente Gert ‘of yp Binited $ Siates” 7 | ois tec ude a ae - x - ’ ou a ’ os md 8 ‘ Se . . « c viet 8 sg $ . ° . . . . » e re r a ° ° . am. , ° ee ppt * = ‘. Santas ee a, te ® Bs) . ‘e,. A me? 's BE as 4 : ; oe i sen ae Le Tor TERE AC Coxtpaxy or “Grorcta’. © ay « pate GY °° ON WRIT OF CURTiORARL TO TH; UNITED SPAT RS Sy Ret ry ? 7 © ait) be . : 9 be ae ’ e . P s vy % “~ « i i : 4 gd m ahd 12 Petrone “ tad . « . ° ° 2 “ ¢ r = “ \ * . . * . ° o ¢ .* . «@ . : i \e ’ *° ° f °. ' a ‘ : ‘ Ce) . . th Get ba . ° a . . . c ° % ; 5 4 ° . . Ss Rae ai . . ° ‘ ’ y + ‘+ vce * $ 2 . -* a re \ ee “ ° Pa 7) * +3 - . ae i N ° - ‘ . . : ‘ . } . ~ ; s \ « cane. 6. | NOV 45 a - - > S$ 5 . +s . en ee tee Shine en aS ed = . £ mena oo panty 7 to - + x ae — . o a © + ‘QQURT OF’ APPEALS FOR TUR FU TH CHRCUIT «2 ¢ ; a ‘ : a . ra = - g a , Ps Pages - — on . i iS “. BRIEF FOR THE NATIO on La) 30K RELATIONS BGARD. ~* ‘ . a.” . : » 6 .. oO. * certiorari-denied, 304.U. 8. S75 n ’ is earc : Carter Carhuret Corp. v. Nation Lahey Rel ations Board 140 F: (2d) 714 (C. CLA 8). . 21,: Cating Rope Works, Inc... Matter ef. 4 NL. R. B.1100 Cities:Service O7 Co , Matter of, 20:38. cc a RS ° 4 " 4 rs +4 1 ae ‘ 0. ~ . ‘ Q ; Page Ria raters ~v : - B ‘ se , Be : a Cases—¢ ‘ontinued. ete ee ae - Page Cudahy P lackin Co., Matter of, 17 N. L. R. B. 392, en- ; forced; 118 F. (2d) 205 (C. ©. A. 10). ba * 40, 42° Denver Automobile Dealers. Ass'n., Maiter of 10 N. L. R. i. 1173, ..- : nA ye - 43 bohson v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 489. Ht reese » General Motors Corp., Matter of, 14 N.L. R. 2.113, enforced, * 116 F. (2d) 306 (C. C. A. 7) ; — _ 40 * Goodyear Aircraft Corporation, Matter of, 77 N. L: RB. B. ms _ 902 : ; wae a POY 18 Greenebaum Tanning Co., Matter of 25 N. L. R. B. 672. en- forced by consent, January 26, 1942 (CC. A. 7). : 40. Hague v. C77. OL 30ZU. 8. 496. iaeneene 14 Hancotk: srick & Tile Co... Matter of, 44 N° L. R. B. 920 " 40 Harlan Fuel Company, Matter of 8 N. L.-R.B. 25 14, 20 © Heinz a CH. J... Matter of 10 N. L. R. B. 963. enforced, 311 UL S..514 : a S- 23, 43 - Heod pias Co., Ine., Matter of 14.N. L. Re B. 16 a Ae. 43 - Houde Frigineering Corp., Matter of, 42 N. L. R.B. 713 40 Howe. Scale Co., Matter of 47 N.L. R. B. 1399-, ” 42 Industrial Rayon Corp., Matter of, 7 N. L. R. B. 878 41 International Assoc tation of Machinists v. Nationa r ° Relations Board, 311 U. 8. 72 ,20 ° Jamison v. Texas 318 U.S. 413 ‘ GBS Ze 16, 39 Jensen Radio Mfg. Co., Matter of, 27 .N. ‘ R. B.Si3...°... 2 _ Karp Metal Products Co., Inc., Matter of 42 N. LR. B. 119, enforced, 134 F. (2d) 954 (C.-C. A. 2)__ 24. : 17 Kiddie Kover Mfg.°Co., Matter of, & N. L. R. ‘B. 335; én-: foreed, 105 F. (2d) 179 (C.C. A. 6) __- NOE Kohen-Ligon-Folz, Inc., ooh of, 36.N. ‘, R. B 1294, cn « foreed, 128 F. (2d) 502 (C. er ip ctcia Reo ee Lady Ester Lingerie Corp., ene: of 10 N. L. R. B. 548. .40 Lanz Cotton Mills Co., Matter of 9 N. L. R. B. 952. enforce d, ALE F. (2d) 814-(C. C: A. B)_it 2. icles OO Lovell v. Grifin 303 U.S. 442. ‘ Scape 16. + Lowenstein & Sons, Inc, M., Matter of, 6 N. L. 97 B. 216, order enforced by consent, October 24, 1938 (C.-C. A. 2) - 40 _ Martin'y. Struthera 319 U.S. 141 °_ 14, 16, 27, 29 McQuay-Norzris Mfg. Co. v; National Labor Relations Board, * 116 Fo (2d) 748 (C. ©. A. 7), certiorari denied, 313°U. S. 565 an toe teehee 24 - Médo Photo Supply Corp. v. National. Labor Relations Board, © 321°'U. S. 628 ; : ga nnwe eae 34. - Midland Steet Products Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. (2d) 800 (C. ©. A. 6)... mete Mohawk Carpet Mills, Inc., Matter of 12 N. UL. BR: B. 1265) 43 Murdoc Ev. Fe nsisylrania, 319 U.S. 105 mere 23,430 oO. Sy, - ee ia Wi. ar , \ ays : 5 rie Cases-—Continued. - , pit: 5 ‘Page : Natrepal Labor mr Board v. M. E. Blatt @o., 143 F. (2d) 268 (C. C. A. 3), certiorari denied, November 13, - ry 1944, No. cae his Term __.- - 22 National Labor Relations Board v. Burry Biscuit C orp., 123 / F. (2d) 540.(C. C. A. 7)__-- o.-- is 15, 22, 35 ‘National Labor Relations Board v. Star Publishing Co., 97 F. (2d) 465 (C. C. A. 9)_, . 9 3 ‘National. Labor -Relations\ Board ¥. Virginia Electric , toa Power Company, 314 U.S. 469. , 42 National Labor’ Relations Bogrd ° v. Waterman Steamship - Corp., 309 U.. 8. 206 Sean A “eT 2 ‘ National Labor eer Board v. Whatier Mills Co., 123 — F. (2d) 725 (C. C. A. 5)... Rei a -Natioral Labor Relations ” Boaha ‘ W illiameon- Dickie Mfg. ; Co., 130 F. (2d) 260 C.C. A. 5) % igi ohcre 36 Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Co poration, ‘Memes i » N.L. R. B. 886, erforeed, 109 F. (2d) 128 (C. C..A. 4)- 40 ed é. ? ee ibe vf. : Cuses— ‘ontinued. oh : Se , Page ‘North Americar Aviation, inc:, Matter of, 56 N. L. R. B. $39. 18 Oran Lumber Co., Matter of, 42 N. Lb. R. B. 1073_.______. 14, 21 Paragon Dig Casting Co., Matter of, 27 N. L. R. B. 878_... 17, 19 Peyton Packing Ce., Matter of, 49 N. L. R. B. 8282. __-__- 15 see Dodge Corp. v. Nationa! Labor Relaftans Bogrd, “313 U. 17. Sd ck cian ae 9. 12 BE oe Rie of v salad California, Matter Pi 25 N E ee ae oes a PEP eee AUN fo) 3, Bik es rant SEO See sueeeere 44 » Ranco, Ines, Matter of, 87 N. LR. B.. 426... - go... -- xy 44 Rath Packing Co., Matter of, 14 N.'L. R. B. 805, enforced, 115 (2d) 217 (C. ©.’A. 8).-.-.--. 40 Remington Rand, Iné., Matter cf, 2N.L R. B. 626, eudanied 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C. A. 2), eertigrari denied, 306 U.S: - » Richfield Oil € ‘orp, Ma ter af, 49 N. L. R. B. 593, enforeed, 143 F.*(2d) S60°%C. C. A. 9)... ; 21, 23 Roebling’s Sons Co.,: Johw A., Matter of 17 N. i. a. 182, South ¥Allanti Steamship Co v. National pets Relations, 5». Board, 116 F. (2d) 480,10. ©. A. 5), certiorari denied: 315° 2°J . 576.:. “ 2 a4 40 Republic Aviation C rp. : Matter of, 5 N. ” R. B.-Fi86_2. ~ 26 Re publre = sagan nhs v. National Labor Re lations Board, get 1.193 (C. C. A. 2), certiorari eer ‘Vetober ’, 1044, “s 226, ae Term Be » 17, 23, 26, 32,38 - 2 Re we Products 4 PrP. . Matter of, iN oN. L AR, = 1202, en- y fereed, 144 Ff. (2d 88-{C. C. A. 2) : ; ee 19 enforced, 120 F. (24) 180 (C: CA, 8). se Lae Schngider v, State, 308 UL S.147_ 15, 16,-27, 30 Seas Shipping Co., Matter of 4 N. LR. " aA 2 Securities Exchange Com mission Vv. Che nery ee poration, 318. U. 8. 80. 3S + Sled Mig. Co.. Matter of, S8 N. LR. B., No. 232 18, 21 U.S. 582... ; pret SE Npalek Engineering - C8: meen Matter df, 48@N. L. R. B 1272: .. oy oh Roe. SIRT ee Tahin- Picker é (so., pred af, 50 N. L. R.. B. 928... 18, 26 Thomas, | a eB Colina” Noa. Pigs ‘this Term. Jee a a 2° Thornhill ¥,, Alabama, 310 U. 8. 88 : ae ’ a 14 * Todd Shipugtrds Corp., Matter oN. ha Ss. i : 40,43 Tinton Die Casting Co. Matter 7 WN. bk. RB: 36. Tc: eo Valentine vi Oarestensen, 316 U.S. 52 2-9. (et ase ep 30 Virgrnia Ele ctric & Power Co., Matter of, 44 N. i. R. B. 404. @. enforced, 319 U.S. 5383_.° ae. Watlace Mfg. Co.. Matter of.-2.N. L. R B, 1081, e nforceds ; 95 F, (2d) 818.(C. C. A, 4 . co SVaterman Ste: =e Corp., Matter of, TN. .L. R B 087, ‘ et forced, 309 Uv. 200. Jae es pee : } We nig satan oy C arp., Matter of. 42 N.L. RB 140 Liao 17 8 j » ‘“ a a hee ' ae si a . ° : ° —y oats ie ~ Cases—Continued. Page Western Garment Mfg. Co., Matter of 10 N. L. R. B. 567. 40 ~ Western Union Telegraph Co., ere of AT.N.L, ih. B. 34, ‘enforced, 113 F. (2d) 992 (C. 2) « 40 West Kentucky Codi Co., eT . pea N.°L.. R. Bs. 88, « en- forced, 116 F. (2d) 816 (C.C. A. mae ack eaaenccc ee Westinghouse Electric & pokey Pea Labor Rela- ie tions: Board, 112 F. (2d) 657 c. _C, A. 2), affirmed, 312 . be U.S. 660 ; o ae ‘Weyerhacuser Timber €o., Matter of, 31 N. L. R. B. 258. _. 7.14, 21 Miscellaneous: . Bituminous Operators Special C ceamitées, The Company. : Town, Sept. 8, 1923 : oe) ‘ Brissenden, Paul F., Employment Syste m_ of the Lake | Carriers’ Association. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Buli. * | ( No. 235 (1918); pp. 24-24 aja oe - 20 Brooks, R. R., When, Laber Orgahizes (1988); p. 10 17 | Brooks, R. R., As Steel Goes (19407, po 117 17 Re: , Chaffee, Zachariah, The Inquiring Mind, New York, Har- c | _ - court “Brace (1928), pp. 175-176. - 20 i ~ U.S. Coal Cominissicn, Labos Relations in ‘Bituminous s _ Mining, Part 1 (1925) p. 156, 19 be ~ USS. Coal Commission, Laber Rp lations’ in’ Bituminous - ; Mining, Part’3 (1925) p. Satis: . a 20 oe U. 8.-Commission on Industrial Relations, . Final aan af —, * *.* Vol. 1, 1916, pp. 78-79 ; 19 Davis, H. B, Company ‘Towns, Eneyelopedia of Social : Sciences, 4 (19381), p. 12L. = 20 Fitch, John A., The Causes of Industrial Unre ist M924), pp. Oe ee 189-4194,197, 2( : _ Gadsby & M. “The Steel Strike” in “Monthis Labor . ’ ° cookie cothiber 1919, pp. 83. 9] . 20 Hinri A. F., The United Mine Workers of America and : eth Noactl nion Coal Fields (1923), p. 63 is H. Rep. 1347, 74th Cong. Ist Sess., pp. 18-19 43 International Ladies’ Garmept Workers Union, Handbook ~ of Trade Union Methods (1937), p. i] a 17. — of Labor, Annual a A913. pp. 21-22; 1917, 32. tale 7 20 r Sai Bureau of Labor Statistics, National War Labor Board (1923), Bull. No, 287,-p. °-29- 20 * Lubin, Isador, gg of Social Sciences, Mininge- ; ‘Labor, Vol. 19 (1935), p 504: 19 Mitchell, George Sead Jextile Uninism and the South. University of North Carekna Press (1931) 20 National Labor Relations Boar’. Third Annual Report 41, (Gov't Print. Off.; 1937), pp. 118eli4, 115. o tha ever > ~. j L a * + a Misetllareous—Cantinued. ae a “ - Page mt Natioral Labor Relations an: Sixth. “Annial Report ° } (Gov't. Pri®. Off., 1942), FR. 43-44-20: 20 a Natronal Labor Relations Board, Seventh Annual Report : . (Gov't Print. Off., 1943) p. 45 9 " 41 a -.. Rosénfarb, The National Labor Policy : And HowNt W age J . (1040), p. 115.._.. .. ee Ve | 42 Seamen's Jounai, April 1, 1934, p. 55 ihc scitet sk aeaiield tarorg ee * U.S. Senate, West Virginia Coal Fie Ids, Report No. 457, « 7 : 67th Cong. 2d ge . 1922 9 yk a x ‘s Walsh, Ray mond FLCLLO. laduatstad C nvonisiy in’ ‘Action - ae - (1937), pp. 69, 19, 170 Sie ' PY 2 ° West, George P., UWS. Comission oD Industrial Rela- i “tiohs Report on the Colorado Strike (1915). pp. 15, 58.. 20 Wevyforth, William, The Organizability 6f Labor (1917), aos O. 3G2 .. AS ; 17 Statute: ° -_ ‘ National Labor Relations Aet (Act of July 5. 1935, 49 Stat. : 149, 29 US. ©., See. 151, ef aeqg.): : See. 1. os me oa : . eee eee : : ‘ 12,46 ~ ens Bee. 8 (1). - ¥ . ° 12, 46 ; See.-8 (2) _- ear ha ae tn ee 2,47 ."- ae 1 See. 8.43 Rid, _ 12,47 ¢ See _ 2 See. 10 ( ee eet i 47 See. 19. (e).-,...-- : ; Ee ... 37,47 : S, : "ie ey ~ : - ‘: : Ng ‘a : zi e y 7 . : i " ¥ ; ’ . z = : > : m : . ~~ "the Supreme Hed Sines Oc TOBER TERM, 1944 geen em eye Now's ae National Lasor ReLatioys Boarp, PETITIONER ; eae _# Le Tourneatu CoMPANY OF .GRORGIA ; 4 _ (ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT : COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUII BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. es OPINIONS BELOW eg ae : The. opinion of the Circuit Court. of Appe als -. (R. 91-93) *is reported in 143 F. (24) 67. The - - findings of faet, conclusions’ of law, and order of the Board ¢R. "33H6) are reported in 54° N. L.R: B. 1253. | a 2 yoRIspicTion ~~ The decree of the Cireuit -Court of. Appeals - was entered on June 23 , 1944 (R. $4). .T he j juris-x\ diction of this Court is invoked under Section 240° (a) of the Judicial. Code, as ame nded. by the Act df February 13, 1925, and Section 10- (e) and. a of thesNational Labor micas Act. a, | Pr —_ hl; 4 2 . > r) a & « & YX \ ©\ \ rn \ oe \ \ \ - a ee _ QUESTION PRESENTED" W hethery, pea no other feasible means of dis- | tributing unier lite rature is available, the Board could properly find’ that: the Company be promul- gating and enforcing a rule: prohibiting ‘the ‘ dis- tribution of printed mnatter: on its property, in.-SO,, far as it. prohibited employees from distributing union handbills on its parking lots, interfere ed avith the exercise, of the rights guaranteed employees. under: Section 7 c of the: Act, in violation of Section 2. . ns he A STATUTE INVOLVED: The pertinent provisions, of the National Labor Relations Act ( Act of duly 9, 1935, e. 372, 49 Stat: 449, U.S. C,, Title 29, ‘See: 151 et ne are set “out in the Appendis, pp. 46-47 aa: dea .” "STATEMENT © Up. mthe usual proce eedings the Board, on Febs ruary 12, 1944, issued its findings of. fact, con- clusions of law and order: (R. 33-16). The per- - tine nt facts, as found by the Board aud as. shewn ° by undisputed ev idence, imay. be surnmarized as follows:*.- ° . ; Sch eaeanee rel Seton Le Toufrnéau ‘Company of Georgia, a Georgia . corp@ation, hereinafter cadjed thé® Company, isa hnaniufacturer. of ea rth-moving machinery « and ve following statement ‘reférences preceding a sémi- colon areto the Board?s findings those- following are-to the supporting evidence. Feferentes to the typewritten tran- script of testimony are indicattd by the symboF* ie? \ ° Rother products, . and employs: me in 2:10 persons at its: plant, near. Toe ea, Georgia «R. 30 — 36; 44-1, 54). ° The plant site is part of a 6,000- aes acre tract of land, owned by the, Company -or its | subsidiary (R. 36; 54), and extends in its entirety: : along, the northerly side of U. S. Highway 13 . (it. 36; D455; 16-57, Tr. 13). ° It is divided into — . ; 2 sections by a road yay “that: intersects the/high- way -(R. 36; 56-57). -A6- foot wire fence, roughly ‘paralleling the highw ay, but set back at distances. ‘vitrying - from 30. to LOO feet from the highway ~ (R. 36; 55,. 56), encloses each section of the plant (RR. 36; 55, D6). Virtualh, ‘all of the ‘employees, “Tyrespective of the side of ‘the goadw ay upon which they work, enter and - leave the plant through a ‘main gate which adjoins ami office building that serves as.a section of the fence (R. 36: 55, 56, 57, 58, 79),* T his aay is set back from the highway _ 100 feet FR. 36, 42; 56%; the company- -owned - ground ee ia ffice building and the aa ; “| oo way (R. 36; 76), is. paved with conc rete (ii. ») 56-57). Thig¢ concrete. apron and a ey aa : gravel plot, together e alled the North parking hit, * “extend along the highway for 150+ feet. (R, 36; = Adjacent to the clas. but on the conte eS sid of Hith- way 13, iga hamlet owned bythe C fommpany, known’ as. Tour- gee napull, consisting of a United States Post Office, a gasolitie station, and about 50 houses, which are oceupied by employees of the Company (R. 36: 54-55). Tyecoa is about $ miles dis- tant from Tgurnapull (R.36; 54). : "8 The time cleeks are- ‘inside the gate {R. 36, n. 3358). 622028—44-——--2 : qo-56, Tr. 108). ~On the cnbcsite side of the - } ‘ghey is anotier parking lot, here inatter catleat he South Ps lit, which is "leased by ‘the Com- pany | Rv 37: 55, 98-59, Tat, 75-76, Tr. 106- 108), ‘Both its are duarded and kept ‘clean by’ - the Company ’s s plant- protection ‘foree: cased 37 08, 74, 7D, Sk-823. : - me Most of the: employees live in widely se rattered . -commumitie@and S phos within a radius of 20 tniles of the plant (R. 36, 42; 55 , TR 78). They travel -to and from work by PM: or bus” (R. 36237 42; 55, 56, 38, 59; 60-61,°77).. The: conyevances. in whic h about 60 percent of therm Since Jilly 4941, the Company has strictly ex ? travel are parked on the North lot; most of the . others .are parked on the Stith lot (R. 96-37; “58-59, 60-61) . tributing printed” matter of any kind on its prop ety without nermission (R.: 37-38; 74-75, 80-82;*° 83, 90)" In February 1943, the Congress of In-. ; es ar Organizations, “hereinafter called “the - 1. O. began to organize the Company ’s~erm-_ ena and on April 8, 1945, the Board held an election at.the plant, whieh the C. 1. O, lest (Re £ . %; t Before the rule was promulgated, merchants fram nearby tewns employed boys to-place Advertisements inthe parked automobiles, a practice that had resulted in littering (R. 37; “SO-S1, 76). - Theffs from the automobiles had also’ occurred from tithe to time e be fore the rule was adopted (R. 87; 80- $1,- 79). ; Joe ‘ x an © es . 4 ~“ Je forced .a rule prohibiting all pe rsons from, dlis- * ns ‘ing: his day” s work; a a bus stantding on the entering the his, Fakipieon. founda few. ©. 1. Oz, ; leaflets, some of whic h he’ gave. to Feflow passe n- gers, ‘and ‘othe ‘rs of which he handed boc igo act au AQpen winddw to pe rsons on thie parking lot ( I. : 72-73). The Captain of the: Plant Guard saw the. ine ‘idle nt. and instructed Ferguson to re port to’ for 2 days because af his v iolation wf the **no-dis- tribution” rile (Ri 38-39; 7 eer After the ile feat of the. ~~ 1. O.- the Union asked for: permission to distribute haniibitls and about the plant anvouncitgea Union’ nyret- . a few union handbills on the. South parking lot Pete during his lunch: hour, iN the anist: ri belief that ; this ‘lot did. not be Fong. to the ‘Cofapany. ( (K.'39; onard obse ve “d' his actions, whit h we re ultimately: Sanaa . * Uyited "Steelworkers tal Aineride, afiliat eth the re CLT. O.. the bgp ect that filed! the charges in this . ‘ | npeceeding (B. S-9). oye _ Ing, but the Plant Manager odenied: his request: CR. 39; 635-64 ). The ext day, Ayers disfiributed ; "63-65, 68-69, 70, 84-85, Tr. 44° 72-73). A’ plant: 2 " : ; 61-02, Ty 238-39). On the-day of the Board sles, employee Grady Ferguson, afte "3° omplet-- North parking lot CR 3 72-98, Tr, 82). - On: fhe plant manager the ne xf. day (R. OS; Ts): : the - Plast Manager suspended. Ferguson, from work ° : ee to organize the Company’ “ employees local union, % . Re peer OF Ee : Pe ah d Se see ~, reported: to the General Manager (R. 39; 54-89, — 65, 66). The latter suspended Ayers for 2 days bevayse of his violation of the ee ates rule (R. 39; 63, 65-66, 4-15) .. U pon the foregoing facts the Board concluded that’ although the “no- -distriby tion’ " rule ‘had Deen applied to. all persons, without ‘exception, : steking _ to distribute literature on the parking od ots" * (CR: 40), the Company, “in -applying “ts ‘no- -distributing” rule to the distribution of union ¢ literature De its ‘employebs on. “its parking lots * * pli yoo an. unreasonable - innpewli-% _ Ji . ment on the dreedom of conununieation essential to the exere ‘ise’ uf its 6 myployees’ right _te se li- organization, * * 8" (Re 45)". oe ‘ ' The. Board poiuted . out that bec ause of the crre “quistane es pider wine +h the emplove es worked and lived, aiid the focation and surroundings of the ‘Cohapany 's plant, distribution of union liter ‘to emplevees at places other than ‘thie ¢ { R. 4142 3 By ‘ compare, AR. 05-07). After cmphasizing the serie property Was . Virtually impossible - ous detiime ntai impact of the rule upon: the qm” , ployees’ freedam. of self -Org anization, the Board turned to a consideration of the possible detrinie nt #0 thie chiployer! s inte rests which would How from 7 ’ * The Board fond “shat the rule had-not been. diserimitia-” “torily enforced-against Ferguson and Avers for the purpose of discoumging union tembership and activity (R. 39-49). , oe —— -@ ~” he enforced (R. .5-8 ). (Pi June oo. : 1X4 % ay 8 \ ; 2 ie e parking lots, was not necessary to protect: any le gitinl ite employer interest, and its enforeement busts employees - of the only practical, op- _ pértunity to enjoy their ‘rights under the glet the rile was ine onsistent with the statutory poliey (R.. 40-443). The Board further concluded that, the Company, by applying. its no-distribution rule sto fhe ‘distributton-ef union literature by its em- ployees: on its parking lots, engaged in unfair labor’ practices within the meaning of Section S (Ly oof the’ Act a R. 715 atid. by suspe nding Ferguson and Avers 7 violitions of the rule, “disernminated in regard: to their hire and tenure of emplovinent im violafion-of Section 8 (3) of the- “Aet (R. 43 457.0 | The Board ordered the Company to cease and " desist from its wif’ air "Labor practices ; to make oe erguson and Aye rs whole for the Wages they “lost | during their respective two-day SUSpelslous; to rhecigd the rule insofaPSgs it prohibits distribu tion of uniow dite ature by emMmloyees mi the ‘park- | ices CR. 45- 46). On February 24, 1944, the Compaiii v peti- honed, the court below to set aside thi Board's _ ordi éR. 1-5). . Thereafte ‘the Board, in Compar v's petition, reqyestec that ’\ tng fots: and to po ist Appropriate nswertne i order - I. the court below handed doavn fts opinion and entered i decree setting: aside th Board’s erder in its entirety (it, 91-94). | \ » ie ‘ployer to permit ors ganization efforts [by Itis em- s g P 9 : o " SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS ‘TO RE URGED The Cireuit. Court of Appeals erred— bh holding, as a matter of law, that the Com-_. pany’s application of its ‘no distribution” rule to prevent the distribution of union literature by employees én parking lots did nog interfere with its employees * exereise of the rights: euaranteed are in Section 7 of the Act. .In Jhffd\ng without qualifization that there s: Ifo provision, express or implied, in the ‘Na- beau Labor Relations Act whic h reqilires an em- ployees| on his premises’’ (R, 93), and. that. an. _employer guiay therefore egiisist “that the -em- plovees disc uss and act on the matter of their own organization elsewhere than on. the employer's property.” ( id.). In holding that thesissue presents a question | of law for the court to decide for itself and failing to give any weight to tlie Board's, deter- ination that in the instant circumstances, the- applicatjon-of the rule to eliplovee eonduct on the, ‘parking Jots-constituted interference in violation ofeSection 8 (1 ) of the Aet.. In holding that the suspension of -Fergusén . and Avers for hiving violated the rate didnot 3 constitutes discrimifiation- respecting hire and -; tenuk of euployment violative of Section 8 (3) 4 if the Aet. In seftine aside -and denying enforcement te the. Board’: ‘aaa se, ‘ 10 f SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT — The suspension from employme nt of Feyguson - and Ayers as a penalty for distributing union : handbills was violative of Section 8 (3) and. (1) -of the, Act ufiless the Company was privileged to prohibit its employees ‘from engaging in- such: activities. The Board found -that the Company's rule. prohibiting the’ distribution of union liter- ‘ature on-its parking bots was itself “violative of "Section 8-(1).of the Act and that: the rule con- _ sequently’ could not Justify the suspensions. Al- though a-literal reading of Section 8 (1) would * seem.to render legal ail plant rules which tended to interfere with unton activities pretected in Section 7. the Board, construing . the statute,” ‘has sought to ics: the emiployee interests whie h the statute, protects with competing pro- prietary interests of e ognizes that employees }nust have available ade-. quate channels of communication for the receipt ‘and trjinsmittal of orgahizational informiation both ‘oral and written in order that they may exercise the rights guaranteed them under the Act. It - _recognizes on the othgr hand that solic ‘itation of - union members or distribution of union literature. _ an plant premises is sometimes injurious to legiti- mate employer interests. Therefore, where an ‘employer seeks to justify a rule-prohibiting self- organizational activities on his. premises, the ‘Board balances the extent of the injury which the employer would sustain if th@ rule were abrogated plovers. The Beard reec-. 11 against the eatent of the injury. to the organiza- . tional interests of the’ employees -which' the rule imposes, and in-its decision secks to proteét to as - great a degree as possible the legitimate interests * of both. Hee ey oe o The Board has he ld tliat an employer is justific d-, in prohibiting union. solicitation | during: working hours: And where other adequate met héds of dis; tributing union literaturesto: employees are avail-- able, the Board has held thaten¢ mploye r’s interest ‘in maintaining plant ¢le anliness justifies arule pro- hibiting the qistribution of union literature within the plant. Where no other ade quite channe Is of distribution ‘ire. available, however, the Board : must decide: whether the injury to the employer’ x legitimate interests is. suffices 1e antly serious 40 | Justify frustration of the eniployees’ rights by denying: to them the useof the employer's property. In, the instant case the Board, found that to deny the “employees the right to distribute union literature. on the parking*lots would, because. of the cir. cumstances under, which they: work, and live, make - practic ‘ally impossible for: tlien to realize the benefits of the _ Act. It found further’ that to‘ perinit, the distribution of union literature on the arking Jots would impose little, if ary, detriment legitimate interests of the employer, and. that the nig r remained. free comphtely, to, protegt his interests by methods which did jini “adversely affect the rights of the employees. 22028 44 ae ARGUMENT . The Rearé Properly found that application of the com- pany’s “no-distribution” rule to prevent the distribution of union literature by employees on parking lots inter- fered with the ¢ exercise of rights fuarantecd in Section 7 i tnd vidlated Section 8 (1) of the Act Tt Is undisputed that the Comipany susper “d Ferguson wnd Aver as a penalty for distributing inton haridbills, Since an employer engages ‘in discrimination w Bhin the meaning ofs Section 8 (2) of the Aet whene ‘ver he ‘discharges, refyses to eae or-cotherwise punishes’ an emplovee Tor ene faving’ ine Union activities which are protected by Section 7 of the Net (National Labo Relations | Board \. Muchiy Radio & Pe]; graph. Cu, 304 fe ia _ §03, 340-347 - Assor vated. Press v. National tei t Relations Board. SOLUS. 103. 129; Phelps Dodge Corp, v. National Labor Relations Bouwrd, 313 U.S. 177, IS3, 185), the suspension “of these two employees Was unlawful Unlpss the @ omipaiiy Wiis privile wed to prohibit Its employees from engig- Ing in the particular UNION activities Involves, Section. 7 of the Nationat’ ‘Labor Relations Aer Geclaves that emplovees ‘shall have the right. te self-orgar IZALION. te form, join, OF assist labor “ prganiaitions i pth Section fof the te provides that *it shall, be an wifatr labuy pra tice for an employe {2} To interfere With, re- Strain, or coe ree en plovees j In tei exercise of the eights cnuar: aniteed in Section. : ata . & literal read-_ os ing of this section ® would illicate that aay —em- a ° | Sage aarti a pa ployer action which tends to obstruct. or impede 7 self-organizational activities falls within the stat- utory ban. Se read, the statute would, of course, require abrogation of all plant rules which cur- ‘tailed union solicitation on plant premises. But the Board has recognized that. the statutory pro- ° \ Depresentatives access to their ships has no bearing Ln hibition offinterference, though absolute in,terms, sshoulde be so construed as te harmonize, to ‘the - greatest possible extent, the ‘e mployvee - interests whit | the statute seeks to protect with competing proprietary interests of -erplovers (R. 40-41). The Poard’s S approac +h thus follows ¢ ‘losely that ©. adopted by this Court in reconciling individdial interests with community Interests Which de mana clirbs upon Individual freedom. Governmental restraiiits pon freedom of communication give a . ‘ 9 = “Compare the statement of the nited St: tates C irenit Court of Appeals for the Second Cc ine wait mn National Lahor Rel “ut tions Board w; ™ NSereice Ol. Co..° Yp2v" "FF . (4d) 149, bbe: “Tt may he argued that Section Sof the Aet forbids any in terfereriee whatdver with the right of the enplovees to‘bar gain collectively- nother words:that invonvenignee and loss which ray be occasioned to respondents by giving the Lien ¢}4 e rights of the seamen, which are guaranteed ander Section-7 It would seem thaf a reasonable constrne tiost of thesstative need not lie as swee ping ‘as this. Dowbrt less fife rference mins! not hi xu xubs fantial Us fa preclude rhe réeaxonabl e ¢ POTCISE ‘of i the employeus rights. bit in determining What isa reason-. able opportunity te bargain through chosen re agentes we think the Board way mre iigh the inconveriience, rhsk “ nudge “tai posed mpor the employe kK against Any. ere: car renience to thd Union of access ta the vessel, ° The Board Tras done this andi our opinion eles ah CONE listen based Vip substantyal Yridence.” (Traties SUP pledge er ce 14 - i rise, to the necessity, ‘illustrated in .Martin. v. a Struthers, 319 -U. S. 141, 1438,*‘of wei ighing the conflicting intérests of the appellant in the civil, rights she claims, is. well as the-right of the indi vidual householder - ta termine whether -he is ~ willing to receive her message, against the inter, est: of the COMMUNITY | which bv. this ordinanee of ers te prote ganizations, -which the. Act protects, “are -among- the “fundamental rights” secured against gov- ernmental infringement. ky the First and’ Four- ‘teenth Aniendments. Hague v. C.1. O., 907 ULS. 496,510. Cf. Thornhill vy. Alabama, 310 U: S. 88, 101-104. By protectmg those basie rights. from’ infringement by employers Congress\squght to ‘remove the primary and long standing soulce of abstructions. to their exercise and fffus to create” conditions: indispensable to the attainment of the statutory objectives. As the Board noted in the - “In Matter of Harlan Fuel Co. 8 N , iB: B. 25, 32. the Board stated: “The rights Sas to id Oa by ‘the Act inclucte full freedom to receive aid, advice, and informa- tien from others, concerning those rights and their enjoy- ment. See Bag Matter of Ww, yerhae user Timber by 0. . oF, N. LR. B.2 % 2Od-265 + nga rof American C yanamid ( "On, 37 N. LOR. a STS, SSS—AS6, 5S : Matter of | Oran Lumber Co. 12 N-L. R. B. 10% 3, 10791081. —— 7 a aa ae dees eer 3 a - \ os 15 Rigo - ‘instant case (R. 41), “employees cannot realize the benefits of the rights to self-or ganization guar- “anterd them by, ihe Act, unless there are adequate ave nues, of communication open to them whereby _ they my be informed or advised. as to the pre--- cise Nature of their rights under the Act and of theadvantages of self-organizatien, and may, have opportunities for the interchange of ideas neces- sary to the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion. * Therefore, whenever an employer blocks . an effective avenue for cogimunication of organi: zational information. by promulgation ‘or applica- 3 tion of u-plant rule, the Board must, to adapt the words of this Court, ‘be astute to examine the effect” of the employer’s rule and **té weigh, the * * He cireumstances . ‘and appraise the sub- stantiality of the reasons advanced in support [of cag” Schneider v. State, 308 :U. Si 147,- 161. Such an ap ypraisal led thes Board te conclude in the Pe yton Packing © ase,. 19 N.. L. R. B. 828, 843- S44, enforced on other erounds, 142 F. ( (2d), 1009 “(C. C. AL 5), certiorari denied, October 9, 1944, * No, 29 -circums' solicitatior but not during non-working time. This problem is. now’ before the Court in’ Republic Aviation Corp, Vv. National Labor Re Nations Board, No. 226, © this Term. att Ge | = The right of employees to communicate organi- ° zational information encompasses communication o 7 7 , . this Term, that in the absence of special ces an emplover could prohibit union.” within the plant during. working time See 3 by means of ‘the. written as ‘well as. the spoken word. | The* Board pointed out that ‘speech . is not thi only mode of communication by which | self-organization” ‘is effected, nor is it sufficient that ‘this channel alone be free. Effective orgeni-, zation requires the use. of printed literature and of application and ° membership’ cards, and these +l ‘modes oe communication arte alse protected by fhe Act’? (R: 41). Mie Act, like the ¢ ‘onstitution, eadeae the right °*to ‘distribute literature, Lovell vy. Griffin, 803 U. $. 442, 452, and neces- sy sarily protects the right ‘to receive it.’ Martin v.. uthers, 3 U, S. 141) 143: Jamison’ v. . Leras, BIS U.S. 413, 416. ‘This C ourt has had occasion ti note that “pamphlets have .proved most effec-. banned bY the respondent as a tactic in union organizatior.” But ef. Matt or Of. Neal “fe Mia. c oe? OS NER... No. 2552. . . . e 6 . . es “street in fr oft of his plant (Matter of Sjalek En-. - gincering Company, 45 N. Re B. 1272, 127 76-1279; ° | Matter of, Revlon Products € orp., 4p Ni L. R..B. 1202, ng: 1209-1212, enfores ‘dy 144 F. (2d). 88 “(2 ¢ ; Mattex of Paragon Die ( ‘asting Co., «" WN, a Re. B, 878, 881,886) or at the homes. of —@. his emplorees, ‘his conduct is unquestionably vio- dative. of the Act.- 3 | Often? because pf geographic or other cireum- stances” “under. which eniptey. es work: and live, organizational information cannot be placed in thei ph: inds at places other than the eluployer’ S. property. Fer example, “etiployees who work . and live in company towns br on, board ship ean he approached oniy on the employer? property. Frypstration of the organizational righfs of such - employees by the promulga ition and. enforcement - of rules proRibiting union activity on the em. . ployer’s pheinises of by the denial of access td the “employer's property to union organizers: Was a ‘familiar phenomenon prior to the’ passage of the National Labor _ Relations Act:". After passage - - P ~ U.S: ‘Commission ‘ on Industria! Re lat iong, Final Report ‘i Comiutaian #3 * * Vol. 1 (1916). pp. 78-79: FS. Coal Commntission, Lehor Relations tn Bituminous - Mining: part 3 (1925). p. P31: FA om pany Tourn, submitted tothe U nited States Coal Commission by the Bitiminoyis Operators Special Committee, Sept. ®; 1928: Fitch, John AL. Th? Causes of [n-.. dus trig I ‘mrest (1924), pp. 189-191, 197, 206. Eneve lopedia of Sociak Sciences, *Mining-Lahor, by Isador Lubin, Vol. 10 «°°. (1935)..p. 507; Hinrichs,-A. F.. The United Mine Workers’ “ oF America and the Non-U inion Coal Fields (1925), p. 63; €2202844-— 4 , ; Gs "ees : . : — Zi a . > ‘ , 20. . ee i ¢ . of the Act tae Pow Gail the courts iecognized¢—- thi ‘ate they ights theye. guaranteed were inive ved by employers who utilized their nivel ever prop- “em in this n amen, , Une Board and the courts « $ ‘ Mitchel, Ge: ree Sinclair, Tertile WONTON, and the South, University of oe h Carolina Press (1931): : Seamen's Jour: ie’ April 1, 193%. p. 45: Paul F. Brissenden. VE m ployment Sistem of io Tale C arriers” Assad ‘lations Bureni of Labor Matistics, Bull. Novy: ° (THIS). pp, 24d: ¢ ‘hafee. ‘Zac ‘hariah, - The Franiriy 1 Mined, Ne We V seg", Harcourt Br: ne Ne 1928), PP. be GOTO S. Conimissien on. Industrial Relat®ng, (a ot the Colorado Strike wby George P, West (1915), pre 15.58: aay Anpusl Report of the De y@irtiient of) Labor (19), Pp. 21-02; Smpual: Report-of the Department of Labor (IM). p. -32: de be Strike” in, Monthly-Lahow Review, vy - Mrs, Mo A. Gadsby, Dec. 1919, pps 83. 9b: Davis. He B. é'a any . ris, Ey ievelopedi: nof Social Sciences.. Vol, 4° Li2] : ‘VT. SS. Se nate, W. vf Virain 7 aut Fu lds: thir ‘Si\atisties, Nati Wop Lal ser] Re Oot pel, " (avy, _ Na. 25¢,'p eB L. 8: C oe Co “ONIN ISS1On, Libor Relations Lvtianidne (prin Wind F] id. 7 art i ' 1th “ p. 16, ’ ’ de port No. 7, Ott) Cohe.. = AGas (1929 ;).-. Als 3 ee Ah hoits Sisth Annual Report a Boa rd said: “In indus-* Ly Bs whe ¢ the employees guust spend vareually all of their ni? Upan the-emplover"s property. jt' is upparent that the emplover can effective Ly pieVvent their poe ecole of the ad rigits by lenyvi gr oayion represegits tives a@ecess: to its proy- the Bias lL has. accordingly “held that the exclus sion eb iter representatives from the emplover’ ~ property umsler * veh errenmstances constitutes ‘erfous interference’ with the ey reise of the rights gunrariteed: i it Sectien Af ile National ay 1.4 Toy, A. i}: Matter Op hari rie in ( Van Id C 0, Labor Relations Bours : Republic Aviation Corp. v: National Labor Relations Board b4z FL (2d) 198, 196° (C0. C. A. 2), certiorari granted . t : > » &@ 24 ® . W here the caly practical, method of! soca. ing* union literature to employes depends upon utilization ofthe employer's property, the Board: is. called upon .to decide. whether. sucti activity would i impose upon the employer a detriment so severe) as to justify prohibition, of the distrybu- tion ar consequent, frustration of the crployees’ rights under, the Act CR. 41-43). ‘In the instant case the Board first-considere rd the extehit to which the Company's rule, insofar as it prohibited dis- ‘tribution’ of, union literature by employees on the parking lots, deprived them of ‘the freedem of. communic ‘ation Which is essential to the exercise of the right to self organization ” (H, 41). . The “Board found that: iy : o 6 & -responde nt’s pfant is loc ated in ‘the country in-thie heart 6f 6:Q0U acres of land owned by. it oy ifs subsidiary. Apart from U.S. Highway No. 13 (and perhaps the inte rscetihe road), the respondent. and its subsidiary own all the laird adjacent to the gma This, in itse If, seriously «limits October. 9, 1944, No. 226, thie Te ‘yon South Ath ani the Steam ship Co. v. Vational L abortRelations Board, 116 I. (241 ) {s0). #82 (C. CL A. 5), certiorari dened, 3818 USS. S82: Natidnal Labor Relations: Board Ve Glick Brewing Co. 144 F. (2d) j S4T, | SL —S54. Cl ¢ ._ A. 8): Rie fe ld OW A orp. ay ational Labor Be lutions Board. fe , FF... (Yd) tually impossible nndeér these Gircumstances, can it is ay ingscapable conelusion that self- orgdnmization is consequently seriously im-. pede OR | ii. 41-42). The Board. further Founid that because “the em- ployees’ homes are scattered: fiver a wide area,’ hovise-to-house — distribution of liteMiture was highly impracticable (R. 42 ),’and that “Tn the absence of a list of names andaddrésses, * * * direct contact t with the majority of the respond- ent’s émpleyees ee av from thre plant would be extremely diffieylt’? CR. id.). Here then, since the’ bulix of em loyees do et upon leaving the” plant. step out “Inte a public street or highway, ‘essential organ ational literature -ecan Re - dlis+ . ‘tributed to them in the normal. fasHion only if the virtually impossible for the Company's employees +) “realize the benefits “of the right to ie ‘organization: guarantee then by the Act’’ certiorari granted, October 9, 1944, No, 226,- this” Ma . Term), the Board proceeded to consider the pos: oo : the littering of its parking. lots. "The Board ree- ognized that the Company had a legitimate in- terest in-preventing littering but it found that the - ture on the parkiny lots. It pointed ut that the parking. Tots Would be distribution within the plant itself. - plant would be likely to, inpose® some cetriment upon theem- _ distribution within the ‘plant, Whether, if no alternative. “method of « listribution were available, thé Board would order - - ee would-be distributors are permitted to use the parking lots (R. 42, (6-67). | _ After émphasizing that enforce ‘ment of the Coin-- pany’s. Fule' under these circumstances foreclosed a vital avenue ‘of communication and made ¢it (R. 41, ef. Matter of Repubtic Aviation. Corp., 51 N. L, R. B. 1186; 1193, enforced, 142 F. (2d) 193° sible detriment to the ¢ Company ‘s interésts whie ‘h would result fron’ abrogation of the rule as ap- |” plied to the parking. Tets, The Company con- tended first ‘that its rule was necessary to prevent danger of litte ‘ring neither necessitated hor justi-’ | fied a rule precluding distribution of union litera- aie ™ The caly practical dai to distribugion on the Sinte, as the Board pointed out in the "Tabin- Pickey case, supra, Gstribution ef ution literature within a preduction plover: the Bo@rd did net order the Company to permit such an employer to permit distribufion of literature w cithin the.” plat would de: pendfupon its appraisal of the be nefit” “preju- : diss consider: ations set out below. . 7 : \ Littering of: parking lotstis by: ho nieans as sekious to an employer as would be dittering ‘within — buildings where proddétion: is) being carried ee a tal cR. 42; 78, 71-72). The necessity’ of cleamng litter fron™parking lets, like the ne-- cessity. of cleaning ‘it from city streets, is at most. a “‘nrinor nuisance.’ Martin x. Struthers, 319 U. Seth. But the Board’s order; as it noted, does: net require the Company to bear even this “minor burden, since it doesnot deprive the Com-, . pany of the power to prevent the littering of its: parking lots (R. 42). The same “obvious methods — of preventing littering’? (Schneider y. State, 308. U.S. -1AT, 162), Which may. result from the dis-) tribution .« if printed matter are Oper ay an- ploye ras aye opyn toa manic ipality which wishes - to keep Ws streets clean. * Amongst these is the punishmeyt of those who actually throw papers”? oon the parking lots. “The best way to.prevent lit- tering, as the. C ompany *'s plant manager in effect conceded at the he awh g (Tr. 121-122 . is to niake ‘a rule against litte ring. This Court ‘s holding that ‘tthe purpose to keep the streets clean. and: of good. appearance ts, insufficient’ te justify an ordinance whic hy prohibits a person rightfully on -a publie street from handing literature to one willing sett “receive it 4 8 (Séhiicider case, 308 U, at p. 162), is paralleled by the og in the iistant case thaf an emplover’s similar pur- pose. dges not justify a rule which: prohibits ai einployte Who is rightfully and necessarily on the’ > . a . ane . : ae , . in & Ne ; 9 i parking lot from there handing wnion literature. to those of his Tellows who are willing to receive - The. ¢ ‘ompany 'S second contention, that its rile - . Is necessary in ordey to prevent lit@rattire from being brought into the plant. where it might al- legediy interfere with’ efficiency and endanger the- safety of machines and employees, was teyected -by the Board as ~vithout merit. The Board EN pointed out that, the Company does not attempt te prevent employees from bringiig newspapers * or other reading matter ito the plant: im fact, the Company jplaces.copies. of its’ magazine inv boxes’ near the: plant gate, which employees Can. take with them Info the plant (R. 43). It is avident,- therefore, as ‘the Board found éid. ), that the ‘Company does not sincerely’, fear that the” distribution of literature ow its parking lots would have any appreciable effect upon the efficiency’ ~vand satety of operations within the plant. “Eveti - if such a danger did exist, it could easily be met within the framework of the Board’s order. As. ‘dhe Joard pointed out’a ‘rule. barring the carry ‘ing of terature * °* * intothe plant * *, *. yuist the . plant -. would provide ‘a better safeguard aga impairment of efficiency and safety in gd would (R. 43)2 _ The Company's tinal contention that the rule than arule directed at distribution, not be subject to the suttie objections” is necessary to prevent thefts from automobiles . Ge alle nved “fred : ; = , 29 left on ‘its: parking lots, ‘is 5 manifestly untenable. Thefts, which had occurred while the Company pe rmitted. non-e mployees to distr ibute commercial advertisements on the parking lots (R372 R0-81 ), admittedly ceased when aveess to the lets was denied to outsiderseand gnards were statianed on the lots CR. 33, 792 Tr. of oral argument before the Board,.33). The Company's no-distribution rule can have’ no. tendeney - to prevent. thefts by employees ‘33 aceess to’ the lots. i? any evgit” i CR. 42), . the fts by outsiders it remams prec ‘iselye as € ‘ffective _after the Board's : order as before; the order does not require the Company , to grant ‘access to its > parking lots to outsiders, having ny legitimate ——>y v business on its premises." . ''The-facts in the instant case de not: -present arid the Heard did not consider the question whic h would arise af unlon representatives who were not employed at the plaat sought to distribute liter: ATURE OF the parking lots. T he same benefit. prejudice considerations. which the- Board deemed ' controlling in this tase must be applicableto such a situation, and the consistent holdings of the Board and the courts that an employer may not deny access to his property to ‘union’ __Yepresentatives when access Is necessary to enable the em. "‘ployees te exercise their rights under the Act intelligently (mn. T.4p. 90-31. supra), would indic ate tnat, subject to what - ever safe griards naa be appropriate (CF. Martiny Struthers, OU. S: 141, 143): union represent: itives, no less than. emt ployees, should be permitted to, distribute. literature on the. parking lots (Cf. Brief for the United States as Amicus. . Curiae in BOIL Thomas y. Collins, No. 14, this Term, pp. Ls, 14-15, 28-29, 34-36). Ce, as. the Board foynd, they are: sofar as thee rule tends to prevent ? . \ cs » - The he Company” ‘S assertion that if. it: were” re-. quired | to pe ‘rmit its employe ees to distribute union “lite ‘rature on the parking’ lots it could not *right- * fully deny -to Jother me ‘mbers of the public and / other employees thre right to distwibute. other literature’? (C ompany ‘'s br ief in the court below, Jf. OF 1s based on a won se quitur, The requirement thag an. “employer fulfill his Statutory obligation - of non interference with the ‘dissemination of self-— organizat i®val infeytiation by employees anid heir representatives no more preve nts him frem pre shibiting. the dissemination of other types Df: printed mat y by either employees at the peblic at latge than*does the constitutional requirement | that governmental agengies refrain frogo infring- ing upon freedom of the press prevent them from. “restricting the distr’ ‘ution 6f comme reial, yend- bills. Murdoe he . Penusyleania, 319 U.S. #05, e TIL; Valentine ¥. ( here stonsé i, O16 U.S. 32, 54-55 7 Se hneider 2: State, Sad Vv. 7 i, AGS, Goce pp. 206253, Spr Je : ~The most Senificeant reasén offered by the Com- “pany for the application of its no-distr ibution. rule to Ubien dite ‘rature appe ars clearly. from the fol- lowing statement in itsabrief in the cour below ‘(p. 67: **sinee an election was held the result of —— Which. was against the Union * *.* dist ribis- tion “OF -funion]. literature pro and con would necessarily enge nder strife.” . The court below: evidently adopted this suggestion as justification for the-rule, After citing with approval e rea- : . - - goning jf the Circuit» Court Met as Sixth Chventé in Midland se Mrodusie ‘Co. ¥, * National. Labdr Relations Board, 113.8. -¢€2d)..- ,8002° the court said: Unfortunately organization. . efforts often produce excitement and féeling along the - employees, even exh ibitions of Viow’ Jenee’? CR. 93 re But this argument’ Proves: too muehk. ‘It would se TVe equally well to justify pro: hibition chet on ly of" the. distribution of unton lit- erature but af unigh discussion or solicit: sth,” at any place, because such activities might CaMse se mich hostility bet ween employees | as 10 interfere with thetr harinonions ‘relations dairing working hours’ What this’ ‘argument really ‘amounts to is- that an employer should be. permitted: to ban any. activity w hich night create differences of opinion among employees about joining a anien er remain-- ing aloof The insubstantiality if the C ompany 's fears that tht distribution of union bicckiane would ‘engender strife’? and thus interfere with production is apparent in the light of the fact that the Company does ‘hot find it, necessary oF desir- able to prohibit orak solicitation and discussion: about unions on its” premises, gondyeth x which; on *Tn the Midland: case the court held that” an employer” “? rule ‘which prohibited uerien solic itation, on plant premises during non-working as wéll as working hours w was not viola’ tive of the Act. The court found justification for the rule i the alleged ir that, “Solicitation, argument, the harfing. of epithets in fense discussion before work has been commenced: - or in the noon hour, may teasonably be expected tovcarry a ber- tain animus over into werk hours.” 113 F.-(2d) S00, 805 80%. © Appeals. for the. 7 mas | 2 es a “ ae ee, , the reasoning of the wourt below, would bets at -Jeast as great @ ‘tendency to ‘produce excitement and feeling’? (R. 93) among the .employees as wy “would the distribution of promotional literature. If. oral discussion and solicitation. for unions on thre: Company’ Ss premises does not result in mani- % festations of “feeling” af oF. violence” whiéh inter- fere with production, it is difficult. to understaid how the dissemination of: union, hiteraturé_ could . . * . The instant: case, as ‘the Board pointed out “(R. 40), 3 g requires an evaluation of conflicting riglits ieee y policies—the employer’ s right to regu- late the use of his ‘own property, on the one hand, - 4 ‘as. against the émployeés’ right to receive infor- mation-to enable them to. exércise their right td : s¢lf-organization, which it is the polict of the Act to encourage.”’ The Cireuit¢ ‘aurt of Appeals for the Second Circuit ii) discussing the ‘analogous . situation presented in the Re pubes case, said that« it is for the Board to determine in such eases . “(1) wHat in fact will” be the prejudice to: the interests of ghe employer in allowing {the par- do so, ticular union activity involved | to” go le ia and what will be the -benefit, to the employees ;_ and what will be his benefit and their prejudice ill, disallowing £4 (2) whether the’ bene iP shale prevail over the prejudice, or vice versa * (142 F. (2d) 193, 196). And: the courts in that caseg ¢ properiy récognized’ that ‘only ‘in cases where [the reviewing courts]. believe that. there is no . toes | es 4 ° : “ - pp. 24-32), upon a careful appraisal of the preju- . : : 33° iS bad treasonable warrant for the’ - priority ‘actually. awarded” (id) may the Board's, order ‘be set aside. The Board's conclusion. j in the instant case; that the Company's rule, insofar as it conflicts with the statutory policy of ‘protecting the ex- “ercise, by workers of full freedotn of association, - self- -organization, atid designation of représenta- “tives of their own, choosing”, (Section 1), must gives way, was. Vased, as. we. have shown above (supra, dice to the employees | and benefit to the employer Which would flow from continued enforcement of the rule and of the- possible prejudice to the employer and benefit to the ‘employees? which , might result from its partial. abrogatien., In view of the Board's findings that No. prejudice what- ever’ would result to the Company from partial abrogation of the rule, whereas. its continued: ene | foree ‘ment would render *self- -organization among the ¢ Company's S employees virtually impossible of +,% attainment, the Baard. was clearly justified in 7 awarding “priority” to ‘the inter ests of thie. ém- ploye ees. -Certainkly it. cannot be: said that there ‘s** “tho reasonable warrant’ *Yor the Board’ Se CON- | - - clusion; consequently, unger the principles: of judicial review applied by” the Second Circuit, which, we submit, aie ¢ utirely’ proper the Board’ S. decision should. have bee n sustained. ° The ‘court below did. not set aside as unsup- epor' ted by the eV idence, any of the Board’s find- a gs Of fact, ‘converning j the® repercussions of thg f\ that upon those findings the Board’s conclusion,” . nA 34. Company's: rule upon the interests of ine. em- Mayes: and of the employer. Nor did it hold. that proteetion of the statutory interests of the employees demanded abrogation of the rule tos the extent directed. by the Board’s order, was, un- reasonable. Instead, unlike the Cireuit. Court of - Appeals for the Second Cireuit, it failed to acgord, any weight whate ver to the Béard’s construction of the statute; it excluded as irrelevant any con- ” sideration of the extent. to which the rule as ap-- plied deprived employees af practical opportunity to exercise the rights which ° the statute, in. the ‘public interest, conferred upon them; and it com-’ pletely disre ‘garded the Board’s determination’ that under the cirewmstances here presented, on ~ balanee, the interests of the employees ‘should. prevail. . The court’ below thereby disregarded the prineipile often enunciated by this_Court that _upon such questions **the experienced jidement of the Board is entitled to great weight.’’ Medo _Photo Supply Corp. v. National’ Labor Relations Board, 321 U. S. 678, 682, 684; National. Labor . “Réiations Board vy. Hearst ‘Publications, Ine., 322 Vv, is 111, 130-131; Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489, 500-501, and cases therein cited. In place of the Board's -ceusddeced isahdé which gives effect to the language .of the statute proscribing employ er ‘interference’ * and at the same time recognizes that limitations upon self- ~ organizational activities may at timies be appro- \ a Ge a Ko . priate when — activiti 's conflict yith substan- ~ tial, legitimate employer interests, the court below substituted its -ow® rule—that an employer may insist “that the employees discuss and act -in the matter of their own organi#ation elsewhere _ they enter tlie employer’s property. As we have. * shown above (supra, pp. 18-20), the Board and e than on the employer’s property”? (R. ,93). “The court's rule rests.on the fallacious assumption that employees lose their’ “righ ts under the Act when - the courts have uniformly held that dn employer mays net deny access to his pr@ aperty to unien organizers and thereby block an essential avenue of communication betwevn employees and those through whom they cain make their statutory rights. effective., And ever the court below 2ec- ognizes that—an. emplo ye camot lawfully insist © “that-the employees discuss and act in the matter _ oF their «wn organization elsewhere than, on the employer’s property,” if his motive in doing so is to discoukage or impede self-organization. Na-- tigual Labor Relations Board v. Peyton Packing Co., 142 F..(2d) 1009 (C. C.- A. 5), certiorari denied, @ctober 9, 1944, Na, 298, this Term. Since the employer’ S motive, a- we have demonstrated. (supra, pp: 21-23), is not the decisive factor in de- termjning whether conduct w hich interferes: with full freedom of Self- -OTS! nization is_ violative of the Act, the right of em) !oyges to have access to information and advice »: cessary to enable them to exercise their rights vider the Act cannot be 7 made to depend upon the employer's motive in. | ae e- such access.to them. ‘Fhe Company itself concedes that there must pe some: accommodation between ‘its right to regulate _- the use of its property and the statutory rights of the employees, for it admits (Company’s brief ‘in, . the court below, 10; see also Tr. 219-221, 236-237) that a no-distributing rule, if applied to the entire six thousand acre tract.of. land, “might be too — -restrictive.”’ Yet, under the rule applied : by the ° court below; the Board would be powerless 'to find even such a rule ‘violative of the Act. In sum, the theory adopted ‘by the’ court. below would per- mit any employer who controls the property*on’ = which his empleyees work: and live’ to foreclose every afénue of communication of organizational information ‘to and between his employees. and thus effectively to preclude them from. obtaining the benefits of the Act. So te construe the statute would frustrate attainment of. its objéctives in a large segment of American industry. — The same vices inheré in*the approach of the . Cireuit Courts of Appeals forthe Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits to cases involving the validity of rules prohibiting union solicitation on “an employer's s property during non- -working as | a as working time. Midland Steel Products C National Labor’ ‘Relations Board, 113 F. (: 2g) 800 . 805, 806 (C. C. A. 6); National Labor Redions Board vy. Williamson-Dickie Mfg. €o., : 130 F. (2d) 20, we, 267-265, (C.°C. A. 5)3'C arter- . . ~ the rule was.unreasonable and hence null and yoid. Whether this rule was reasonable is a question of law for the . ve ee Carburetor. Corp. v. Natiénal Labor Relations Board, 140 F.€2d) 714, 716 (C. C. A. 8) ; National Labor. Relations *Board-v. Denver Tent & Awning Co., 138 F, (2d) 410, 411 (C.-C. A.10) ; Boeing * Airplane-Co. vy. National Labor Relations Board, 140 F. (2d) 423, 435 (C. C. A. 10). ‘These courts adopt the view that no-solicitation rules cannot. be tional. rights, iftthe rules are * ‘rei asonable.’t They hold further that the “reasonableness” of such rules is a matter of law to be determined exclu- found to violate the Act, no matter how serious * their effect upon ‘the exercise -of self-organiza- ~ sively by the courts.” — is_a usurpation of. administrative functions (PI 32-34, supra). * This approach is ‘exemplified, by the opinion of thé JSiath Circuit iw the. Widlaud case (113 F. (2d) at p. S059: “Since the rule was violated, the discharge was |: awful tinless * * * court to determine, Little Rock & M. Rd. Co. v. Barry, &.. Sir. 84+ F, 944, 43 L. RAMA. 349; Missouri, Kok 7. Ry. Co. ve Collier, 8 Civ. 157 F. 347: Chicago, R: L&P. Ry. Co. ¥. Ship. 8 Cir. 174 F. 353; Central Rd. Co. of New io Jersey ¥. Young. 3 Cir., 200 F. 359, L. R. A. 1916E, 927." It i is noteworthy that the cases cited by the coart to support is for the courts to determine did not arise under the Act. Obv iousdy the question of whether court or juryis the proper . tribuna¥ to decide the ° ‘reasopableness” of working rules when these are challenged in a. negligent?assion’ *by an em- ovee is-entirely unrelated to the. question hether, under ’ the statutory scheme created by (@ngress, the Board-or the court is the proper tribunal to decide whether an employer's - rile whie h infringes’ rights guaranteed by the stat sonable.” The answer to the latter question is indic -referénce to. Section 10 (e) of the Act and the app lic abl] e is * ‘rea- tec by the proposition that fhe “reasonableness” of employer rulés deci- . r Pia 38 ‘Moreover, in determining the reasonableness of such Tules, these courts apply a different standard than that applied by the Board. They disregard | _the interests of employees.which the Act protects, - ‘ and determine “reasonableness” solely ‘i in relation | _ to the sled cofitmon law right of employers to control the use df théir property and ‘the conduct | of their employees.. Such an approach i is no{more - appropriate in- these cases than it was in the . Flearst ease, supra, or in. Securities_&-Eachange Commission v. Chenery Corporation, 318 U.S. 80, 87; 89, 90-92: As the Second Circuit pointed out in the Republic casé (142 F, (2d) 193, 196), when atr ibunalis.called upon to determine questions of- “reasonableness,” which ariee in many fields of the law, it ‘Valances the” “interests against each éther, and awards priority as seems to it just.’’ > But if courts exclude from consideration the statu- tory interest gof employees in self organization, their findiug that an employ er’s rule is ‘“‘réason-= ” ‘able’? could not be the product of a balancing of employer and employee interests but is simply .a - +> conclusion ‘based on the erroneous: premise, that employees lose their statutory rights upon enter- ing the employer’s property. _Te assert that an ~ employer has the power absolutely to prohibit Be sel f-organizational activities on factory yrounds v as an exercige of his plenary control ‘over such. —*, siovis of this Court Cited above (p. 34), vidi, we supmit. have been properly interpreted by the Circuit Court of Ap- pels for the Second Circuibin the Republic Gase. - 747: Matter of C uday acking Co., "N. L. R. B. 302, 316, enforced; 118 F. (4) 295 (C. CKK. : 10); Matter of Western Garinent Mfg. Co. 10 .N. L. BR. B. 567, 570, 573; Matter of J. Greenebaum T anning €0., 2% uary 26, 1942 (C. C.AvT): Matter of Virginia/Electric €. -o NLL. R. B. 672, 675, 684. 685, enforced by nae Jan- E _ > Poiver Co., 44 N. L. RoB. 404, 415-418, 425, nforced, 319 U.S. 533; Matter of Hancock Brick & 7; Co., 44 N. L, R. B. 920, 9294; Matter of Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corpération, 12 N. L. R.. B. 896, 891, 993, enforced, 109 F. (2d) 128, 129 (C. C. A. 4)5, Matter ¢ Houde Engineering Corp. 42-N N. LR. B. 713, 722, 725;Matter of Carlisle Lum- bereCa.. 2X... R. B. 248, 270-871. enforced, 9£ F. (2d) 138° 143, (C: C. A. 9), ¢ertiorari, ‘denied, 304 U. S. 575; Matter éf Lane Cotton Mills Co.. 9 NL. R.. _ 958, 969- 970; enforced, ‘111 F. (2d) 814, 816 (C.C. A. 5}; Matter of Bradford ‘Dyeing Asen., 4 N. L. R. B. 604, 613-614, ~ enforced, 310 U,,S. 318, 335. ; *% Matter of John A. Roebling’s Sons Co.. W N: L. R.-B. 482, 499-300, enforced, 120 F. (2d) 289, 293 Ay C.-A. ays | Matter of Western Union Telegraph Co., 17 -N. L. R. B. 34,- - 63, 137, enforced, 113 F. (2d) 992, 995 (C. C, A. 2); Mat- ter of General Motors Corp., 14 N. L. R. B. 13, 120-122, enforced, 116 F. {2d) 306, 308-309 (C. GC. A. 7). *% Matter of Cai'v2 Rope Works, Ine., 4 x L. R. B. 1100, 1110: Matfer of. Toad Shipyards Corp. . L. _R. B. 20, 34-35; Vatter of & Lowenstein & Sona, So 6 N.L. R. B, 216, 232, order @nivreed by’: consent, October 24, 1938 = “"(C. C. A. 2); Matter of Union Die Casting Co. 7 N. G. _R. B. 846, 851: Matter of Lady Ester:Lingerie Corp., 10 ~ = L. R. B. 518, 524; Matten of Rath Packing Co., 14 L. R. B. 805, 813, enforced, 115 F. (2d)- 217, 219 c-&. $). .s * Matter of Remington Rarid, Tic... 2 N. L. R. B. 626, 732. enforced, 94 F. (2d) S82. 868, 69 (C. C. A. 2). certiorari ® . aS | 4i f stitutes support. within the meaning of. Section Ve : | ee: But the Board has never held that mere . _ Zin. interference by an employer with union solici- ° tation or with distribution of union literature on his premises during non- -working time amounts to . illegal support. Nor eould an employer be. sus-. > pected of attempting to-dominate a labor organiza- tion simply because of his acquiescence in such ac- tivities. .Findings’ that. an employer has domi- nated a labor organization within the meaning of Section 8 (2) depend upon ‘the existence of con- ditions or circumstances which the employer created or for which-he was fairly responsible and — as a result of which it may-reasonably be inferred . , e that the employees. did not have that complete and? unfettered ana of choice which the Act con: ; : denied, 304. U. ‘Ss. 516: Matter of Kiddie Kover Mia: Co... : ° 6 &, L. R. B. 355, 362-364, enforced, 105 F. (2d) 179° (C. C. A. 6): Matter of Industrial. Rayon Corp., TN. L, R. B: 878,.890. 1 ae 6 dae * The Board statéd in its Seventh Annual Report, “1 is, an unfair labor practice * * * fér employers * * *. te aid the [labor] organization by supplying-financial aid or the use of company facilities suchas bulletiw boards, mailing lists or office “space.” National | flaber Relations Board; Seventh Annual Report (Gov't. Print. Off., 1943), - ‘p.45. In its*Third Ansiual Report:the Board cited casés in which it found that by “furnishing financial aid and various facilities _to employee organizations, such’ as the use z of~bulletinboards, mimeographi machines, the Company automobile, stenographic. services and office space’ and-mail- ‘ing-lists” employers had violated Section 8 (2) of the Act. National Labor Relations Board, Third Annual Report. (Gov't. Print. Off., 19375, pp. 113-114, see also p.. 115. 42 templates.”’ National Labor. Relations Board v. . ° .. Link-Belt Co., 311-U. 8. 584, 588. Such a finding _ . must take into account the “whole congeries of facts’’ (id.) including ‘‘imponderable subtleties at _ werk’? ‘which it is the. Board’s function, to ap- praise, National Labor ‘Relations Board v, Vir- ginta Electric & Power Company, 314 U.S. 469, 79. © Certainly,. as this. Court pointed out in the © Link-Belt case, supra, ‘no one fact is conelu- A sive.’ * Often, the grant of valuahle facilities to | a labor @rganization or the sanctioning of or-. izational activities on working time * is deemed ~ (Cf, Rosenfarb, Th Vational Labor Policy and How 4 ss ee Works. (1940), P, 115: “In-virtvally none of the Cases have . ¥. employer attempts at domination been along any single : line of attack. Manifold activities have been resorted to'to - achieve this evd. The Board, has, therefore, never had“ to decide as to th determinative effect of. any one activity.” - In proceeding: ‘with the” arialysis of. the Ways and jeans of interference, with company unions, the factshould not -be lost sight of that the Board had ‘dealt. gith them me a _ combination of circumstancés.” — G*In ‘determining | whether a course; of conduct constitutes ° 28 violation of Section § (2), “The” Board has - * + , considered the effects of employer's activities. ia sitin «2+ ‘thesfonduet’ of organizational .actiyities on the employer's _. premises’ during working hours with. the @onsent of the ‘employer.” National Labor Relations Board, Third Annual » Weer 4 . - Report (Gov't Print. Off., 1937), p. 113. See, for example, — Matter of Cudahy Packing Co., 17 N. L. BR. B. 302, 317, i enforced, 118 F. (2d) 295 (C. C. A. 10) (circula- tien of union petition on- working time); Matter of Howe — 8 the Board. an. indication of employer favoritism Co., a N. L. R. B. 99, 1403,"T413 ene of % “34 I 43 ; ‘ toward a particular labor organization and as‘such ‘an element of domination. Cf. H. ‘Rep. 1147, 74th Cong., Ist Sess., pp. 18-19; Matter of Berkshire Knitting Mills, 46 N. L. R. B. 955, 977, enforced, 139 F. (2d) 134, 139-140 (C. C.-A. 3), certiorari denied, 322° U. 8. 747. But the normal inference of favoritism which arises from the grant of com- “pany time or facilities to a labor. organization may ‘be, and often is, rebutted by persuasive. evidence of employer neutrality. For example, in Matter of Mohawk Carpet Mills, Inc., 12 N. L. R. B. 1265, 1272-1273, the Board said: The fact that the ‘geapondent sintaiited Solicitation of. membership by the Amster- _dam Union on company time w ould,- ordi« narily, be ia Sa, | circumstance — =m pefitions, distribpation of: literature, solicitetion,- during working hours) ; Matter of. Todd Shipyards Corp., 5 N. L. > R. B. 20, 34-35 (solicitationand meetings, on’ company time); Matter of H. J. Heinz Co., 10 N. L.'R. B. 963, 970, 972, 973-978, enforced, 311. U. S. 514 ‘(solicitation during - working hours) ;. Matter :of West Kentucky Coal’ Co., 10 N. L. R. B, 88, 103, enforced. 116 F. (2d) 816 (Cx-C: A. 6) , . (cireulation of membership cards during working hours) ; :; eo Matter of Denver Automobile Dealers Ass'n, 10 N. 1. R. B. . _ 1173, 1204 (solicitation of members during working hours) ; ' Matter of Hood, Rubber Co., Tne., 4 N. GL. R. B. 16, 24-83. {solicitation of members on’ company time) ;, Matter of Bradford Dyeing Assn., 4. N. L. R. B. 604 12-614, en- forced, 310 U. §. 318,. 333-336 irculation of membership ~ cards during working hours) ; atter of Lane Cotton Mie Go., 9 N. L. R. B. 952, 9NQ-790, enforeéd, 121 °F, (2d) 814, 816 (C. C, A. 5) (meetings held during working fours). 2° e 482 x | ¢ § . 0% 2 Be. ) _ domination and interference with that or- _ ganization. However, since ‘the record - shows that the T. W. O. C, [the charging. tinion] was permitted like freedom in this _ regard, we cannot say that sponsorship and support of the Amsterdam ‘Union are shown, withinthe meaning of the Act” Normally, of ceurse, the mere fact that an emn- ployer does not interfere with ‘the solicitation of members. on behalf of a labor organization dur- ing non-w orking time or with the distribution 9g uniort literature in a manner which does not im- pede production constitutes no evidence whatever of: favoritism toward the labor organization. in- volved, and we are aware of no case in which the. Board has held to the contrary. Only if the em- ployer interferes with the similar activities df a “competing labor organization, or himself instigates “the organizational activ es, Or affirmatively CO- "operates with a. labor’ organization to increase the effectiveness of its proselytizing techniques by . ,” ‘lending to them-an appearance of employer — sponsorship’ does his conduct take on ‘the color of | iggality. CONCLUSION Ok RE nee. eet For.the Arigong reasons it is; respectfully sub-: y mitted that the decision below s lould be rev ersed. ° Nees rd: Matter of Ranvo, Ine:, .5TN CLR. ‘B. A25,; Matter of Ponty Predtice rs of c ‘entral ¢ tm igi 25. N. L. R. B. os 7.359, : ) } “ ‘ ene “ 4 atid the cause remanded with directions to en- ‘force the Board: s order 1 in full. ‘ / CHARLES Fany, aes ayee Solicitor Genokal. ALvIn J. RocKWELL, ; ' . General Counsel, RctH WEYAND, — 2 + Mozart G, Ratner, ~ . Attorneys, . National Labor Relations Board. Pe ~ 4 . = + a \ “ . a - ye 52 . : & fF “ ® ~~ . = b , é —— Ng The pertinent provisions of the National a thor Relations Act (Act of July 5, 198549 Stat. 449, _- #29 abt C., See. i a, et seq. ) 3 are as follows: * -- \ a SEC. 1 - « ere * * Oise. } It is- hecriihie declared to bé the poliey of the United States: to eliminate the causes of -eertain substantial obstructions | to ther. _ free. flow of commerce and to ‘mitigate and *: elinninate fhese obstructions: when they have | ,oceurred: by encouraging the practice and’; at * procedure of eqllective- hargaining and by Os ~ protecting the exercise by workers of full e freedom of association,’ selfsorganization, |’ .° and designation of representatives .of ‘their’ , own éhoosing, for the’ purp&e of negotiat- *< | ing the terms.and éonditions“of their em-.. ° - , ployment or other mutual aid or protec tion. ec S ae *- + alae » eet Sec. 7 7. Eimploye ees shall hay éthe vight. to» self-organization, to forms join; or assist , “labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own chdas-, . fig, and to engage in concertedsactivities, - for the purpose of eallective bargaining or * + other —— aid oy protection, Sere. 8. It:shall be -an¢ unfair = pre ‘ac : ‘tlee ae an employer— sh ‘yu. 4 ae iiitterfere with, - restrain, er coerce __enaplaye ‘es’ in. the exercise. of the rights F *attaganteed in section 7. -- (48) .- 1% Men. a “re - ‘ &. (2) To. Seminite: or alia: With the formation or administration of any labér organization or coritribute financial or other support to it:.* * * sok (3) By. discrimination: in regard to dive or tenure of employment or any term. or condition of employment to’ encourage or discourage membership. ae any labor ics suena 7 a eee e. * See 8. * as ** ‘See. 10. - as °’ 7 e . & 4 - Py a 4 : * & : a as ? e) ~ -. e Tf nyjon. al] the testimony, taken the Beard shall be of thesopinion that’ any person nariied in ‘the complaint. has tie engaged in of is engaging in any such uni- _ fair-dabor practice, then the: Board shall _ State its’findings of fact arfl shall issue atid cause to be served on steh person an. order requiring such person to cease aad ‘desist from such unfair. labor: practice, and to ~. take .such affirmative action, including re- . * “instatemenf of employees with or without =. .. back pay, as will effectuate the policis ies of o--€ this: We ey , wha aig ie x ee Dok nae # Specs - *¢e)- * ~The find ings -of ¢ the Board < as to the facts, if suppeyted hy. evidence, shi ll he conclusive.» af" Y me s) x. ’ : 16 4 ° vai equcenmen psa OFFICE. 1946 foo ee A Abe 5 5 © * Ue OM --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386404_0147%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.