4 S. Ill. U. L.J. 475 (1979)
The National Labor Relations Board and Pre-Election Misrepresentations: From General Shoe to General Knit

handle is hein.journals/siulj4 and id is 485 raw text is: THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND PRE-ELECTION MISREPRESENTATIONS:
FROM GENERAL SHOE TO GENERAL KNIT
Obviously, a man's judgment cannot be better than the information
on which he has based it. Give him the truth and he may still go
wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or
present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant,
sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate false-
hoods, and you destroy his whole reasoning processes, and make him
something less than a man.
-Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968)
Address to New York State Publishers
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended, estab-
lishes the right of employees to organize among themselves in order to
bargain collectively with their employer.' To protect that right, Con-
gress has statutorily instituted measures to aid employees in the exer-
cise of the right and to guard against its violation.2 Perhaps the most
crucial of such measures, the one allowing for employee election of
bargaining representatives,3 has been the source of much litigation
before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the federal
courts. The representation election process has evolved into a contest
between organized labor and management forces, each striving to gain
employee votes through various means of persuasion. The opposing
parties usually conduct active campaigns to sway the employees in the
exercise of their voting right for or against representation. These prac-
tices have often resulted in campaign misrepresentations which inter-
fere with employee choice in the election process. This paper will
examine the past and current law regarding misrepresentations in pre-
election campaigns, its effects on employee choice, and the changes in
NLRB policies, tracing the development in the area from the early for-
mation of review standards in the 1948 case of General Shoe Corp. 4 to
the recent change of NLRB policy in General Knit of California, Inc. ,'
decided in December, 1978. It is this author's position, as this paper
will demonstrate, that the NLRB was correct in returning to its tradi-
1. 29 U.S.C.  157 (1976).
2. Id.  158-169.
3. Id.  159.
4. 77 N.L.R.B. 124, 21 L.R.R.M. 1337 (1948).
5. 239 N.L.R.B. No. 101, 99 L.R.R.M. 1687 (1978).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?