## Facts

- Golub Corp. operated grocery stores and employed a small unit of store employees targeted in a union organizing campaign.
- A union sought to become the employees’ bargaining representative, and a representation election was scheduled for February 17.
- During the month before the election, Golub communicated with employees about the union and collective bargaining.
- Between February 2 and February 12, Golub sent several anti-union letters to employees.
- The letters argued that the union was making promises it could not keep and asserted that union demands at larger grocery chains had increased prices and reduced workforces.
- Another letter stated that unionization would change the workplace atmosphere; that a collective-bargaining agreement could limit management’s ability to grant customary informal “special privileges” (such as flexible time off); and that unionization could lead to layoffs or store closures.
- On February 16 (the day before the election), Golub delivered an anti-union speech to employees, warning that unionization could alter company culture and increase prices, which could result in harder work for remaining employees.
- The union lost the election by a vote of 24–4.
- The NLRB Regional Director set aside the election, treating several of Golub’s communications as unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act.
- In related unfair labor practice proceedings, the Board issued an order against Golub (including a bargaining remedy premised on the union’s claimed majority support via authorization cards) and petitioned the Second Circuit for enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether Golub’s campaign letters and pre-election speech contained unlawful threats or coercion under NLRA § 8(a)(1), or were protected employer expression under NLRA § 8(c).
2. Whether the Board could base a bargaining order on authorization cards where the organizing campaign led employees to think the union would obtain representative status only by winning an election.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s order to the extent it rested on findings that Golub’s letters and speech were unlawful coercion rather than protected campaign advocacy.
- The court rejected the Board’s reliance on authorization cards to establish majority status under a theory the Second Circuit had already declined to accept, and therefore would not enforce a bargaining order premised on that card-majority approach.
- Because the Board’s extraordinary remedies depended on these legal and factual premises, enforcement was not granted.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(c) protects an employer’s noncoercive campaign communications—views, arguments, and opinions—so long as they do not contain threats of reprisal or promises of benefit.
- Employer predictions about economic consequences of unionization are not unlawful simply because they are forceful or unfavorable to the union; they cross the line when they amount to a threat that the employer will retaliate against employees for choosing union representation.
- In the Second Circuit, authorization cards are not automatically dispositive of majority status when employees were led to believe that only a Board election would confer representative status; the Board must apply the circuit’s standard for evaluating the effect of solicitation statements on card validity.
- A bargaining order is an exceptional remedy that depends on a legally adequate showing of majority status and serious employer misconduct that makes a fair election unlikely; absent those predicates, enforcement is not warranted.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit refused to enforce the NLRB’s order against Golub because the employer’s anti-union letters and speech were treated as protected expression under § 8(c) rather than unlawful threats under § 8(a)(1), and because the Board’s bargaining remedy relied on an authorization-card majority theory inconsistent with controlling Second Circuit law.


National Labor Relations Board v. Golub Corp., 388 F.2d 921 (1967)