## Facts

- A union began organizing an electronics manufacturing plant with about 25–26 employees and obtained support from four employees.
- After an employee was discharged (believed by employees to be for union activity), employees struck and picketed.
- The discharged employee asked the company president to meet with union officials; the president refused.
- Acting on advice of counsel, the company president prepared a written poll asking: “Do you wish Local 1922 of the Electrical Workers to represent you?” with “yes” and “no” columns.
- The plant superintendent presented the poll to employees individually and told each employee they were free to sign or not sign.
- All employees signed in the “no” column.
- There was no finding of other unfair labor practices, and the record contained no evidence of employee hostility to the union.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s written poll of employees about union representation, without stating the poll’s purpose or assuring employees against reprisals, constituted coercive interrogation or interference violating NLRA § 8(a)(1).
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of coercion sufficient to warrant enforcement of its cease-and-desist and notice-posting order.

## Decision

- The court denied enforcement of the Board’s order.
- The court held that, on the undisputed record, the Board lacked substantial evidence that the poll was coercive within the meaning of § 8(a)(1).
- The court treated common “safeguards” used in interrogation cases (explaining purpose, assuring no reprisals, and legitimate purpose) as relevant factors rather than automatic prerequisites whose absence alone establishes a violation.
- A dissent would have deferred more to the Board’s view that failing to provide an explanation and assurances could reasonably be found coercive.

## Legal Principles

- Whether employer questioning about union representation violates § 8(a)(1) turns on the totality of the circumstances, including the presence or absence of other coercive conduct.
- Frequently cited interrogation criteria (communication of purpose, assurances against reprisals, and legitimate employer purpose) are not a rigid checklist; their weight depends on context.
- A Board finding of unlawful coercion must be supported by substantial evidence that the challenged conduct would reasonably tend to interfere with employees’ protected rights.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce the Board’s order because a single, nonthreatening poll—conducted with employees told they were free not to sign, and unaccompanied by other unfair labor practices—did not provide substantial evidence of coercion under NLRA § 8(a)(1), despite the employer’s failure to state the poll’s purpose or provide explicit assurances against reprisals.


NLRB v. Lorben Corp., 345 F.2d 346 (2d Cir. 1965)