54012 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations that precedent in Nash-Finch Co., the employer from telling the truth about not susceptible to a First Amendment Supreme Court concluded that the the impact a union might pose to his challenge.44 Board also had implied authority ‘‘to business.” The Board rejects these The Board is equally satisfied that the enjoin state action where [the Board’s] arguments. rule does not violate NLRA Section 8(c), federal Pawel preeiipis the field. aD. As an initial matter, requiring a notice 29 U.S.C, 158(c), whieh, GREATES é. safe U.S. at 144. Like these judicially at purclaneea righic.in be noshed dees nol harbor for noncoercive speech in the recognized powers, the notice-posting 7, omploye’ Me P ‘ unfair labor practice area. Specifically, ; : ; ‘ violate the First Amendment, which : : : requirement that is the subject of this rotects the freedom of speech. Indeed, >“ #02 8(c) shields from unfair labor rulemaking has not been specifically pe . P ; * practice liability “[t]he expressing of ; : this rule does not involve employer ? Sa as rovided for by Congress. But the cited any views, argument or opinion, Pp y S speech at all. The government, not the ade 8 pin : cases demonstrate that Congress need anielaver, will wrod: d cm provided that ‘‘such expression contains not expressly list a power for the Board Ma aye ‘tors pm ne a Sere no threat of reprisal or force or promise to legitimately exercise it. Indeed, the i In ht othe omy Seert te ol of benefit.” Id. (emphasis added). A notice-posting requirement is noteven _°8# at Picts euatent we feu government poster containing accurate, an implied power of the Board in the responsibility Jor the content of those factual information about employees’ P P : osters, and the poster explicitly stat ‘ a same sense as those previously i ES) ane | ae OF Explicitly state egal rights “merely states what the law mentioned. Rather, it is the product of | tha