## Facts

- A union sought to represent employees at a shirt manufacturing plant, and a Board-conducted representation election was scheduled.
- Before the first election, the employer’s president addressed employees on company time at the plant with an anti-union but noncoercive speech.
- The union twice requested a comparable opportunity to address employees under similar conditions; the employer denied the requests.
- The union lost the first election; the Regional Director set it aside under an “equal-time” approach applied in prior Board precedent.
- A second election was ordered; the employer’s president again delivered a similar noncoercive anti-union speech to employees on company time.
- The union again sought an opportunity to speak and did not receive access before the vote; the union again lost.
- The Regional Director again set aside the election based on the equal-time doctrine, and the union sought Board review.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer’s noncoercive, anti-union speech to employees on company time at the plant requires granting the union equal access as a condition of a valid representation election.
2. Whether the Board should retain or abandon the prior equal-time doctrine in light of NLRA § 8(c) and the Board’s authority to ensure fair election conditions.

## Decision

- The Board reversed the Regional Director and allowed the second election results to stand.
- The Board held that an employer’s noncoercive campaign speech to employees, without more, does not obligate the employer to provide the union equal time or access.
- The Board overruled the prior equal-time doctrine that treated denial of comparable union access as objectionable conduct warranting a new election.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(c) protects noncoercive expression of views, arguments, or opinions; protected speech cannot be treated as unlawful absent threats, force, or promises of benefit.
- In representation cases, the Board may not set aside an election solely to penalize an employer for engaging in noncoercive campaign speech.
- Inequality of access between employer and union, standing alone, does not establish interference with employee free choice sufficient to invalidate an election.
- The Board may regulate election conduct through neutral, generally applicable time-place-manner rules to protect employee free choice, while avoiding content-based restrictions on protected speech.

## Conclusion

The Board held that noncoercive captive-audience speeches on company time do not trigger a Board-imposed right of union reply and do not, by themselves, justify overturning a representation election; the Board therefore rejected the earlier equal-time rule and sustained the election outcome.


Livingston Shirt Corp., 107 N.L.R.B. 400 (1953)