NLRB v. Virginia Electric and Power Co.
314 U.S. 469, 62 S. Ct. 344 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's speech expressing views on unionization, while protected by the First Amendment, may constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act if, when viewed as part of the employer's total course of conduct, it interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in their choice of a bargaining representative.
Facts:
- For many years, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the Company) was hostile to labor unions, having suppressed a strike in 1922 and employed a person to report on union activity.
- Shortly after the National Labor Relations Act was upheld in April 1937, the Company posted a bulletin encouraging employees to bargain directly with management without an 'outside' union.
- The Company then held meetings on its property where officials gave speeches stressing the desirability of employees forming their own bargaining agency.
- Following these meetings, employees formed an 'inside' union, the Independent Organization of Employees (the Independent), with the cooperation of company supervisors.
- While the Independent was forming, a company supervisor surveilled meetings of a rival C.I.O. union and warned employees they would be discharged for associating with it.
- The Company discharged an employee, Mann, who had openly protested against the formation of the 'inside' union.
- The Independent quickly signed a closed-shop contract with the Company, which also provided financial support to the new union.
- Subsequently, the Company discharged three other employees (Staunton, Elliott, and Harrell) for refusing to join the Independent or for their activities in an outside union.
Procedural Posture:
- Several unions filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging Virginia Electric and Power Company committed unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB investigated and issued a complaint against the Company.
- After a hearing, the NLRB found the Company guilty of unfair labor practices, ordering it to cease and desist, withdraw recognition from the company-dominated union, and reinstate discharged employees.
- The Company and the Independent union petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review and set aside the NLRB's order.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board's order and set it aside in its entirety.
- The NLRB successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
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 expression of preference for an 'inside' union, through bulletins and speeches, constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act when considered as part of a broader course of anti-union conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Murphy
Uncertain. While an employer's speech alone may not be coercive, it can be considered an unfair labor practice if the National Labor Relations Board finds that the speech is part of a total course of conduct that interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees. The Court reasoned that an employer retains First Amendment rights to express views on labor policies. However, these rights are not absolute. Conduct, even if evidenced in part by speech, can amount to coercion under the National Labor Relations Act if the employer's total activities, viewed together, restrain employees' free choice. The Court found the Board's decision problematic because it appeared to treat the company's bulletin and speeches as coercive in isolation, without explicitly linking them to the company's other anti-union conduct, such as surveillance and discriminatory discharges. Because the basis for the Board's finding was unclear, the case was remanded for the Board to redetermine the issue based on the 'whole course of conduct.'
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'totality of the circumstances' doctrine for evaluating employer speech under the National Labor Relations Act. It navigates the tension between an employer's First Amendment rights and employees' statutory right to self-organization. The decision clarifies that employer speech is not a per se violation, but it loses its protection when it becomes an integral part of a broader pattern of coercive behavior. This ruling guides the National Labor Relations Board to build a case based on a comprehensive factual record, connecting speech to other actions, rather than relying on the content of speech alone to prove an unfair labor practice.
