Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB
324 U.S. 793, 65 S. Ct. 982 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's rule prohibiting union solicitation by employees on company property during their non-working time is presumptively an unreasonable impediment to self-organization and an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act, unless the employer demonstrates that special circumstances make the rule necessary to maintain production or discipline.
Facts:
- Republic Aviation Corporation, a military aircraft manufacturer, established a broad rule prohibiting 'soliciting of any type' in its factory or offices.
- An employee at Republic Aviation was discharged for violating this rule by distributing union application cards to other employees during his lunch period, which was on his own time.
- Three other employees at Republic Aviation were discharged for wearing union steward buttons, which the company feared would imply management's recognition of the union and interfere with its policy of neutrality.
- Le Tourneau Company of Georgia had a long-standing, strictly enforced rule against distributing literature of any kind on company property without permission from the Personnel Department.
- The Le Tourneau plant was located on a large, rural tract of land, making it difficult for union organizers to contact employees on public property.
- Two Le Tourneau employees were suspended for two days for distributing union literature on their own time in the company-owned parking lot, in violation of the no-distribution rule.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Republic Aviation case, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found the company committed an unfair labor practice and ordered it to reinstate the discharged employees and rescind its no-solicitation rule as applied to employees' own time.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the NLRB's order against Republic Aviation.
- In the Le Tourneau case, the NLRB also found the company committed an unfair labor practice and issued a cease and desist order with back pay for the suspended employees.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the NLRB's order against Le Tourneau.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases to resolve the conflict between the circuit courts.
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 enforcement of a non-discriminatory rule that prohibits employees from soliciting for a union on company property during their non-working time, or a rule that prohibits wearing union insignia, constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
Yes. An employer's enforcement of such rules constitutes an unfair labor practice. The National Labor Relations Act requires a balance between employees' rights to self-organization and the employer's right to maintain discipline. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority, based on its expertise in industrial relations, to establish a presumption that rules restricting union solicitation during non-working time are an unreasonable impediment to employees' rights. While employers can prohibit solicitation during working time, time outside of working hours, such as lunch or rest periods, is the employees' time to use as they wish. A rule prohibiting solicitation during this non-work time is presumptively invalid unless the employer can prove that special circumstances make the rule necessary to maintain production or discipline. Because neither Republic Aviation nor Le Tourneau provided evidence of such special circumstances, their rules as applied were an unfair labor practice.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Roberts
Mr. Justice Roberts dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in labor law because it establishes the NLRB's authority to use presumptions based on its specialized knowledge, shifting the evidentiary burden in unfair labor practice cases. The decision significantly strengthens employees' organizational rights by creating a protected space for union activity on company property during non-work time. The ruling forces employers who wish to restrict such activity to demonstrate a specific, legitimate business necessity related to production or discipline, rather than relying on broad property rights or general rules. This framework continues to govern disputes over workplace solicitation and distribution rules.
