## Facts

- Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company operated a major radio and television station in Charlotte, North Carolina; its television operation began in 1949 and initially lost money.
- Local 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represented 22 technician-employees.
- Contract negotiations broke down and the prior agreement expired; bargaining later reached an impasse in July 1949, including disagreement over arbitration of discharges.
- During the labor dispute, the union engaged in peaceful picketing treated as lawful.
- Several weeks into the dispute, technicians distributed handbills downtown identifying themselves as “WBT TECHNICIANS.”
- The handbills attacked the quality of the station’s television programming and treatment of the community, but did not mention the labor dispute, bargaining, or working conditions.
- The employer discharged ten technicians it concluded were responsible for the handbills.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging the discharges violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3).

## Issues

1. Whether discharging employees for distributing public handbills disparaging the employer’s product, without referencing the labor dispute, constituted an unfair labor practice under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 7.
2. Whether, on these facts, the discharges were “for cause” under NLRA § 10(c), permitting the employer to discharge and limiting the Board’s remedial authority.
3. Whether further Board factfinding was required to decide whether the conduct was protected concerted activity.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the discharges did not constitute an unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) and 7.
- The Court held the discharges were “for cause” within the meaning of § 10(c).
- The Court sustained the Board’s refusal to order reinstatement for the discharged employees who participated in the handbill activity.
- The Court set aside the court of appeals’ remand order and directed dismissal of the complaint.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 7 does not protect all employee publicity about an employer; concerted activity may lose statutory protection when the means employed are inconsistent with the Act’s purposes.
- Public communications that disparage an employer’s product or services, and have no discernible connection to explaining or advancing a labor dispute, may be treated as unprotected disloyalty.
- An employer may lawfully discharge employees “for cause” under NLRA § 10(c) for conduct reasonably calculated to harm the employer’s customer relationships through product disparagement unrelated to the labor controversy.
- The existence of a contemporaneous labor dispute does not, by itself, shield employees from discharge for separate conduct that falls outside § 7 protection.

## Conclusion

The Court drew a boundary between protected labor-related publicity and unprotected public product disparagement: technicians who distributed handbills attacking the station’s programming without tying the message to their labor dispute engaged in unprotected activity, and their termination was permissible “for cause” under § 10(c).


NLRB v. Local 1229, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers (Jefferson Standard Broad. Co.), 346 U.S. 464 (1953)