National Labor Relations Board v. Golub Corp.

Golub Corp. (Golub) (defendant) operated grocery stores. A union (plaintiff) sought to represent Golub’s employees. In mid-January, an election was set for about one month later, on February 17. Golub sent out a few letters to its employees between February 2 and 12 and made a speech on February 16. The union lost the election by a vote of 24–4, but the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (the board) set aside the election based on several of Golub’s allegedly unlawful communications under the National Labor Relations Act. Golub’s challenged campaign communications generally made arguments against unionization. The first letter asserted to employees that the union was making promises to employees it could not keep and that union demands had driven up prices for larger grocery-store chains and resulted in reduced workforces. In another letter, Golub predicted that unionization would change company culture; would preclude Golub from granting customary special privileges, like days off, due to contractual prohibitions; and could result in layoffs or store closures. Golub’s speech conveyed that unionization would change company culture and drive up product prices, which in turn would make work harder for remaining employees. The Second Circuit was called on to determine whether Golub’s communications were unlawful under the act.