Four days after a three-week strike, during which strike a number of employees continued to work, the union posted Jack London's "Definition of a Scab" on the union bulletin boards on company premises. It read as follows: Definition of a Scab After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a SCAB.
A SCAB is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water-logged brain, and a combination backbone made of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. When a SCAB comes down the street men turn their backs and angels weep in Heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of Hell to keep him out. No man has the right to SCAB, so long as there is a pool of water deep enough to drown his body in, or a ropelong enough to hang his carcass with. Judas Iscariot was a gentleman ... compared with a SCAB; for betraying his master, he had the character to hang himself-a SCAB hasn't. Essau sold his birthright for a mess of porrage. Judas Iscariot sold his Saviour for thirty pieces of silver. Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British Army.
The modern strikebreaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children and his fellow men for an unfulfilled promise from his employer, trust or corporation. Essau was a traitor to himself. Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God. Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country. A strikebreaker is a traitor to himself, a traitor to his God, and a traitor to his country, a traitor to his family and a traitor to his class. There is Nothing Lower than a Scab. The company ordered the postings removed from the bulletin boards under threat of disciplinary action.
The company stated that it acted because the postings would create animosity among employees. The union contended that the company violated the employees' Section 7 rights and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The union contended that it had legitimate interest in strengthening employee support and cohesion for future economic strikes. The company contended that the postings were beyond the protection of Sections 7 and 8(a)(1).
Which party has the burden of proof in this case? Has the Act been violated? Decide.