Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB
57 L. Ed. 2d 428, 98 S. Ct. 2505 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'mutual aid or protection' clause of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees' concerted activity to distribute literature concerning political issues that have a direct bearing on their interests as employees, and an employer may not prohibit such distribution on its property in non-working areas during non-working times absent a showing that the activity will interfere with plant discipline or production.
Facts:
- Eastex, Inc. is a paper products manufacturer whose production employees are represented by Local 801 of the United Paperworkers International Union.
- In March 1974, to build support for upcoming contract negotiations, union officers decided to distribute a four-part newsletter to employees.
- Two sections of the newsletter encouraged union support, while a third urged employees to oppose the incorporation of the state's 'right-to-work' law into the state constitution.
- A fourth section criticized a presidential veto of a federal minimum wage increase and encouraged employees to register to vote to 'defeat our enemies and elect our friends.'
- On March 26, 1974, a union official and Eastex employee asked for permission to distribute the newsletter in the 'clock alley,' a non-working area.
- Eastex's personnel director denied permission, stating that the sections on the right-to-work law and minimum wage were not related to the company's association with the union.
- On April 22, 1974, union officials again asked for permission, offering to distribute the newsletter in any non-working area, such as the parking lot, to avoid disruption.
- Eastex again refused permission for distribution anywhere on its property.
Procedural Posture:
- Local 801 filed an unfair labor practice charge against Eastex, Inc. with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An Administrative Law Judge held that Eastex, Inc. violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.
- The full NLRB panel affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings and adopted his recommended cease-and-desist order.
- Eastex, Inc. petitioned for review, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enforced the NLRB's order.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's refusal to allow its employees to distribute a union newsletter in non-working areas of its property during non-working time violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when portions of the newsletter address political matters such as 'right-to-work' laws and the federal minimum wage?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. An employer's refusal to allow such distribution violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because the employee activity is protected under the 'mutual aid or protection' clause of Section 7. The Court reasoned that the clause is not limited to activities concerning a specific dispute with the employer but extends to employees' efforts to improve their conditions through channels outside the immediate employer-employee relationship, such as appeals to legislators. Both the right-to-work and minimum wage issues are of direct concern to employees' interests. The Court then balanced the employees' Section 7 rights against the employer's property rights, concluding that because employees are already rightfully on the property, the employer's management interests (maintaining discipline and production) are primarily at stake. Since Eastex failed to show that distribution would interfere with these interests, its ban was an unfair labor practice.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The employer's refusal does not violate the NLRA. Congress did not intend to compel employers to open their private property for political advocacy on matters over which the employer has no control. The dissent argued that an employer's property rights are substantial and should only yield for core organizational activities, as established in prior cases like Republic Aviation and Babcock & Wilcox. Extending this principle to cover general political literature constitutes a significant and unwarranted intrusion on property rights that is neither 'temporary' nor 'minimal' and lacks a 'definite and unmistakable expression' of congressional intent.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
Yes. While concurring in the judgment based on the specific record, this opinion expresses doubt about establishing a broad rule that federal law always requires an employer to permit distributions on its property about subjects unrelated to the direct bargaining relationship. The author questions why an employer must allow its property to be used for potentially divisive political issues with which it may disagree, suggesting that an employer's property rights and lack of connection to the subject matter are substantial factors that should be weighed. However, as Eastex made no such arguments on the record, affirming the lower court's judgment is appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of 'mutual aid or protection' under Section 7 of the NLRA, confirming that it is not confined to disputes with an employee's own employer. The ruling establishes that employee political advocacy on labor-related issues, such as minimum wage and union security laws, is a protected concerted activity. By applying the Republic Aviation balancing test, the Court affirmed that an employer's managerial interests, not absolute property rights, are the primary consideration when employees distribute literature on-site. This precedent limits an employer's ability to censor the content of union communications in non-working areas during non-working times, provided the content relates to employees' status as employees and does not disrupt the workplace.
Unlock the full brief for Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB