National Labor Relations Board v. General Shoe Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Labor Law

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActEmployer coercionUnion activityNLRAself-organizationemployer interrogationunion membership

Facts

The employer made communications to employees and interrogated them about their union membership and activities. Those communications and interrogations were accompanied by implied threats of reprisal and promises of economic benefit. The Board found that this conduct coerced and restrained employees in the exercise of their right of self-organization under the National Labor Relations Act. The court considered whether those findings were supported by the record as a whole.

Issue

Whether the employer's communications and interrogations concerning employees' union membership and activities, when accompanied by implied threats of reprisal and promises of economic benefit, constituted unlawful coercion and restraint under the National Labor Relations Act. Also, whether the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

Rule

Employer communications to employees and interrogations about union membership or union activities constitute coercion and restraint in violation of employees' right of self-organization under the National Labor Relations Act when they are accompanied by implied threats of reprisal or promises of economic benefit. A Board order based on such findings will be enforced when the findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

🔒

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, supervisor Lena Ortiz called several assemblers into her office one by one and asked whether they had signed union cards. During each meeting, she added that management 'needs to know who is creating instability' before deciding who would remain on the most desirable shifts next month.

If the labor board finds these facts, which is the strongest analysis under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is narrow but clear: employer communications or interrogations concerning union membership or activities are unlawful when accompanied by implied threats of reprisal or promises of economic benefit, because that combination coerces and restrains employees in their right of self-organization. Here, asking about signed cards while suggesting future shift assignments may depend on the answers carries an implied reprisal. (Derived from National Labor Relations Board v. General Shoe Corp. (n.d.).)