Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Labor Law

Labor LawNLRA Section 7Mutual Aid or ProtectionEmployee Distribution RightsEmployer Property RightsNLRASection 7Section 8(a)(1)

Facts

Employees of Eastex, represented by Local 801, sought to distribute a union newsletter on company property in nonworking areas during nonworking time. The newsletter urged support for the union, opposed incorporating Texas' right-to-work statute into the state constitution, and criticized a presidential veto of a federal minimum wage increase while urging employees to register to vote and support friendly candidates. Eastex refused permission because it believed the newsletter's second and third sections were not related to its association with the union. The employer presented no evidence that distribution would interfere with discipline or production.

Issue

Whether employees' distribution of a union newsletter discussing right-to-work and minimum wage issues was concerted activity for 'mutual aid or protection' under § 7, and if so, whether the employer could nevertheless prohibit distribution in nonworking areas of its property during nonworking time.

Rule

The 'mutual aid or protection' clause of § 7 is not limited to activity concerning a specific dispute with the employees' own employer or matters the employer can directly control; it also protects otherwise proper concerted activity through legislative and political channels when sufficiently related to employees' interests as employees. Where employees already rightfully are on the employer's property, Republic Aviation permits distribution of § 7-protected literature in nonworking areas during nonworking time absent a showing that restriction is necessary to protect management interests such as discipline or production, at least in the circumstances of this case.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a furniture plant in Dayton, Ohio, employees represented by Riverbend Workers Guild hand out a leaflet in the employee break room during lunch. The leaflet urges coworkers to contact state legislators to oppose a proposed constitutional amendment that would permanently ban union-security agreements, explaining that the measure would weaken unions in future bargaining; the employer bans the handout without offering any evidence of disruption.

If the employees file an unfair labor practice charge, which is the strongest argument that the ban violated the NLRA?

Explanation. Section 7 is not limited to disputes with the employees' own employer or to matters the employer can directly control. Concerted efforts to improve employees' lot through legislative channels may qualify as activity for mutual aid or protection when sufficiently related to employees' interests as employees. Where employees are already lawfully on the premises and distribute protected literature in a nonworking area during nonworking time, the Republic Aviation balance applies, and the employer must show prejudice to discipline or production or similar countervailing management interests.