Preemption under the Machinists rule forbids both the NLRB and ...

[s.tung]

Preemption under the Machinists rule forbids both the NLRB and the states from regulating conduct that Congress intended be unregulated and left to be controlled by the free play of economic forces. How does the Machinist rule apply to the present case?

Question 2

What is the meaning of the terms noncoercive speech widely referenced in the Court's opinion?

[livaneabi]

Answer to Question 1

Under the Machinist rule congressional intent to shield a zone of activity from regulation is usually found only implicitly in the structure of the Act. However, the act itself, primarily Section 8 (c) expressly precludes regulation of speech so long as the communications do not contain a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Gissel p. 618.

Answer to Question 2

Section 8(c) of the Act protects the parties freedom of speech and expression with the caveat if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. It is this speech, containing no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit that is the noncoercive speech referenced in the Chamber of Commerce decision.
Go back to Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. at 618, the court stated that Section 8 (c) of the NLRA expressly precludes regulation of speech about unionization so long as the communications do not contain a threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit.

[s.tung]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[lcapri7]

Gracias!