National Labor Relations Board v. Peterson

Decision Date16 October 1946
Docket NumberNo. 10208.,10208.
Citation157 F.2d 514
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PETERSON et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Louis S. Belkin, of Cleveland, Ohio (David A. Morse, A. Norman Somers, Dominick L. Manoli, and Barnard Morrison, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Philip J. Schneider, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Philip J. Schneider, of Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel; Waite, Shindel & Bayless, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for respondent.

Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Morris P. Glushien, A. Norman Somers and Dominick L. Manoli, all of Washington, D. C., on reply brief for petitioner.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN, and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the National Labor Relations Board found that the respondents had violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with, coercing, and restraining their employees in the exercise of their right of organization under § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, and had wrongfully discharged two employees in order to discourage Union membership. The usual order providing for reinstatement of the employees, for cessation of unfair labor practices, and for posting of notices was entered. This is the order sought here to be enforced.

Respondents' principal legal contention is that the statements of respondents' managing partner, made to their employees, were protected by the free speech provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore did not constitute evidence of unfair labor practice.

The Supreme Court, in National Labor Relations Board v. Virginia Electric Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477, 62 S.Ct. 344, 86 L.Ed. 348, recognized the fact that the National Labor Relations Act does not forbid expressions by an employer to his employees of his views on labor policies. This had been previously held by this court, which declared in Midland Steel Products Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 800, 803, that the statute does not forbid the employer, where he is innocent of coercion, interference or restraint, from advocating advantages of individual conferences as opposed to unionization. In a more extended discussion in National Labor Relations Board v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 905, 913-915, cert. denied 312 U.S. 689, 61 S.Ct. 621, 85 L.Ed. 1126, this court held that the employer has the right not only generally to express his labor views, but to distribute a pamphlet embodying these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • NLRB v. Electric Steam Radiator Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 28, 1963
    ...is so even though the statements may not be directly coercive, if they could be reasonably so construed by the employee. N. L. R. B. v. Peterson, 157 F.2d 514, 515, C.A.6th, cert. denied, 330 U.S. 838, 67 S.Ct. 979, 91 L.Ed. 1285; United Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 252 F.2d 428, 430,......
  • Hughes & Hatcher, Inc. v. NLRB
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 17, 1968
    ...U.S. 357, 362, 78 S.Ct. 1268, 2 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1958). However, this right is not unqualified, and as this court said in NLRB v. Peterson, 157 F.2d 514, 515 (6th Cir. 1946): "If they statements are couched in such phrases, or attended by such circumstances that they tend to exercise undue inf......
  • NLRB v. Hobart Brothers Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 7, 1967
    ...in order to constitute an unfair labor practice. N. L. R. B. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 162 F.2d 340 (C.A. 6, 1947); N. L. R. B. v. Peterson, 157 F.2d 514 (C.A. 6, 1946), cert. denied, 330 U.S. 838, 67 S.Ct. 979, 91 L.Ed. 1285 (1947); N. L. R. B. v. Zimnox Coal Co., 336 F.2d 516 (C.A. 6, ......
  • National Labor Relations Bd. v. Elyria Telephone Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 14, 1946
    ...the employer is innocent of the coercion, interference, or restraint forbidden by the statute. But here, as in National Labor Relations Board v. Hal Peterson, et al., 157 F.2d 514, decided by this court on October 16, 1946, we find that the Labor Board was justified in deciding that the emp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT