National Labor Relations Board v. C. J. Pearson Co.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. C. J. PEARSON CO., Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The narrow issue in this case is whether the Labor Board was warranted in interpreting a pre-election letter respondent employer circulated among its employees as an improper prediction of the effect of unionization, depriving the employees of a free choice. The Board found the letter an unfair labor practice, making it appropriate for the regional director to have set aside the subsequent election which the union lost. It now seeks the customary order.
We read the opinion in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 1969, 395 U.S. 575 , 89 S.Ct. 1918 , 23 L.Ed.2d 547 , as indicating two ways in which an employer’s predictions as to possible unhappy consequences of unionization might transgress. The prediction might indicate that unnecessary consequences would be deliberately inflicted by the employer, in other words, a threat of retaliation. Alternatively, consequences not within the control of the employer might be described as probable or likely, when in fact there was no objective evidence of any such likelihood. This would not be a retaliatory threat, but it would be an improper threat nonetheless.
See 395 U.S. 575 at 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1918 .
*696 The instant letter was phrased in the form of questions. It is true that a question may not be as strong as a positive statement. Nevertheless, the posing of a question indicates that there is some reason for asking it. The Board was warranted in finding that respondent’s questions, as put, suggested unpleasant answers. Many were fair. However, we cannot say that the Board was unwarranted in finding that the suggested answers to three of these questions 1
fell within one or the other of the Court’s interdictions.
The order will be enforced.
1
. “Will you still be able to get advances on your pay?”
“Will you be able to take off for three months in the Summer and go to Portugal as many people have done in the past?”
“Will the company be able to sign papers for your friends and relatives to come over from Portugal?”
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Kellwood Company, Ottenheimer Division v. National Labor Relations Board, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
- Kellwood Co., Ottenheimer Division v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. General Stencils, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Lenkurt Electric Company, Inc.
- Hecla Mining Company v. National Labor Relations Board
- Luxuray of New York, Division of Beaunit Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
Most recent
- National Labor Relations Board v. South Shore Hospital
- Hecla Mining Company v. National Labor Relations Board
- Luxuray of New York, Division of Beaunit Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Lenkurt Electric Company, Inc.
- National Labor Relations Board v. General Stencils, Inc.
- Kellwood Company, Ottenheimer Division v. National Labor Relations Board, and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.