NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Labor Law

Labor LawUnion access to employer propertySection 8(a)(1)Employee self-organizationnonemployee union organizersemployer property rightsreasonable alternative meansdiscrimination

Facts

Each employer barred nonemployee union organizers from distributing union literature on company-owned parking lots. In Babcock, the plant sat on a 100-acre tract near a small community; most employees drove to work and parked on a company lot, and the Board found the lot and walkway the only safe and practicable places for distribution. But the Board also found the employer's policy was nondiscriminatory and that the union could communicate through mail, telephones, street and home contacts, and meetings. The Seamprufe and Ranco situations were materially similar, except Ranco appeared to offer somewhat better off-property distribution opportunities.

Issue

Does § 8(a)(1) require an employer to allow nonemployee union organizers onto company property to distribute union literature when employees can be reached through other available channels and the employer has not discriminated against the union? More broadly, what standard governs nonemployee union access to employer property?

Rule

An employer may validly post its property against nonemployee distribution of union literature if reasonable efforts by the union through other available channels of communication will enable it to reach the employees with its message and if the employer's notice or order does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distribution. Employees and nonemployees are governed by different rules: employee self-organization activity on employer property may be restricted only as necessary to maintain production or discipline, but nonemployee access depends on whether employee inaccessibility renders usual communication channels ineffective.

🔒

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.

Crescent Forge Works operates a metal shop outside Dayton, Ohio. Most of its 380 employees live in Dayton or nearby suburbs, and union representatives have reached many of them through mailed flyers, phone calls, home visits, and conversations at neighborhood grocery stores. The company bars all outside leafleting on its privately owned parking lot.

If the union files a charge alleging the exclusion violated § 8(a)(1), what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority held that nonemployee organizers are treated differently from employees. An employer may validly post its property against nonemployee union distribution if reasonable efforts through other channels will enable the union to reach employees and the rule does not discriminate against the union. Mere superiority of on-site communication is not enough.