National Labor Relations Board v. Monsanto Chemical Company

The General Counsel of the above named Board filed a complaint against respondent charging it with unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. 1 The complaint arises out of the refusal of the respondent to permit the representatives of a labor union to distribute union literature to company employees on a parking lot which respondent provided for the use of its employees on company property adjacent to the company’s chemical plant near Soda Springs, Idaho.

Respondent owns a 500 acre tract of land approximately one mile from Soda Springs, a town of some 2000 inhabitants. Its chemical manufacturing plant is located upon that tract of land and the buildings are approximately half a mile from the state highway which runs past the tract. Its private road leads from the highway to the plant structures. Near the plant office building the re *17 spondent has provided a parking area for the use of its employees. It is separated by a fence from the plant buildings. There is no public transportation available and all the employees ride to work in private automobiles. After they leave the automobiles in the parking area they enter a building…

(dissenting).

It is implicit in the majority opinion that had the distributors of union literature been employees of respondent, then enforcement as against them of respondent’s prohibitory rule would amount to an unfair labor practice. To me, the principle involved is the same whether the distributors were employees furthering the cause of unionization, or whether *22 they were merely union representatives having the same purpose. In either event the distributors would be pursuing the same end, namely, to advise the workers at the plant of their rights under the Act and of the purported advantages of unionization.

I think the Board’s order is supported in law and that a decree of enforcement should be entered.

225 F.2d 16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Respondent. No. 14472. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. July 27, 1955. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Patrick Walker, Frederick U. Reel, Margaret M. Farmer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Elton L. French, St. Louis, Mo., Alfred J. Schweppe, Seattle, Wash., Peter W. Bauman, Jr., ,.st. Louis, Mo., for respondent. Before STEPHENS, HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 The General Counsel of the above named Board filed a complaint against respondent charging it with unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. 1 The complaint arises out of the refusal of the respondent to permit the representatives of a labor union to distribute union literature to company employees on a parking lot which respondent provided for the use of its employees on company property adjacent to the company's chemical plant near Soda Springs, Idaho. 2 Respondent owns a 500 acre tract of land approximately one mile from Soda Springs, a…