Flicker of Light

When does an employer's expression of anti-union opinions become intimidation of employes? Into one of the dimmest corners of the cavernous Wagner Act the Supreme Court last week cast a small nicker of light.

The question has always been in a shadowy, ill-defined area. The National Labor Relations Board has loudly upheld employers' right to freedom of speech. But the effect of many of the board's decisions has been to convince employers that they cannot actually speak out. Tiptoeing around in the threatening shadows of the act, many a boss has been scared to peep.

Bold Henry Ford once lashed out. He distributed pamphlets appealing to his men not to join a union. The NLRB cracked down on him, although a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later declined to uphold the board.

Two years ago the National Labor Relations Board also cracked down on Virginia Electric & Power Co., charging that the company had appealed to its employes in bulletins and speeches "to bargain . . . without the intervention of any 'outside' union," had furthermore encouraged an "employer-dominated union," and ordered the company to stop "unfair labor practices." The Circuit Court of Appeals refused to uphold the order. NLRB took the case to the Supreme Court.

The Court decided finally that the board's findings "were not free from ambiguity and doubt," tossed the whole case back to NLRB for a rehashing. In the course of the opinion, the flicker of light appeared. Wrote Mr. Justice Murphy:

"Neither the act nor the board's order here enjoins the employer from expressing its views on labor policies or problems. . . . The employer in this case is as free now as ever to take any side it may choose in this controversial issue. But," Mr. Murphy added, "conduct . . . may amount in connection with other circumstances to coercion within the meaning of the act."

Employers, not sure yet when or how freely they might express their feelings, hoped that the Court meant something like this: though anti-union utterances, backed by anti-union conduct, could be used as evidence of intimidation, anti-union utterances in themselves would not be considered a violation of the act.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.