## Facts

- Two matters were argued together: (1) an organizing drive at NuTone, Inc. involving the United Steelworkers; and (2) an organizing dispute at Avondale Mills.
- Both employers maintained rules restricting solicitation and distribution on company property and/or during working time.
- At NuTone, supervisors questioned employees about union activity and several union supporters were discharged; the employer also distributed antiunion literature while announcing enforcement of its existing no-solicitation/no-distribution rule.
- The NLRB found certain NuTone conduct unlawful (including discriminatory discharges) but concluded enforcement of the no-solicitation rule, as applied on the record, was not an additional unfair labor practice.
- The court of appeals disagreed in NuTone, holding that enforcing the rule in context violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- At Avondale, the NLRB treated the employer’s antiunion solicitation as an independent unfair labor practice and also found that enforcing the no-solicitation rule violated § 8(a)(1); the court of appeals denied enforcement of that order.
- In both records, there was no showing that the union or employees requested an exception or alternative access and were refused, or that the rules’ enforcement measurably reduced the union’s ability to communicate with employees.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer commits an unfair labor practice under NLRA § 8(a)(1) by enforcing an otherwise valid no-solicitation/no-distribution rule against pro-union activity while the employer engages in antiunion campaigning and other unfair labor practices.
2. Whether the NLRB may infer unlawful interference from enforcement of a facially valid rule absent evidence that enforcement actually impaired union communication or access.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that, on both records, there was no adequate factual basis to find that enforcing the employers’ no-solicitation rules constituted unfair labor practices.
- NuTone: the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, reinstating the Board’s view that enforcement of the rule was not shown to violate § 8(a)(1) on this record.
- Avondale: the judgment denying enforcement of the Board’s order was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A no-solicitation/no-distribution rule that is valid on its face (e.g., limited to working time or working areas) is not automatically unlawful merely because the employer expresses antiunion views or commits other unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB must ground a § 8(a)(1) finding in record evidence that enforcement of the rule materially interfered with employees’ § 7 rights, such as by significantly reducing the union’s ability to reach employees or by denying needed access that was sought.
- The existence of other unfair labor practices does not create a per se rule converting enforcement of a neutral solicitation restriction into a separate unfair labor practice.
- Board inferences are entitled to respect only to the extent supported by concrete evidence of interference in the particular workplace setting.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected a per se approach that treated enforcement of facially valid no-solicitation rules as unlawful whenever an employer campaigns against a union or commits other violations; without evidence of actual impairment of union communication or denied access, enforcement was not shown to violate NLRA § 8(a)(1) in either case.


NLRB v. United Steelworkers of Am. (NuTone, Inc.), 357 U.S. 357 (1958)