Other appellate courts split on the issue, so the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Finding that the definition did not expressly exclude paid union organizers from employment, the Court upheld the NLRB's decision that such applicants were entitled to non-discriminatory treatment in all conditions of employment. The Court ignored evidence that one of the announced goals of union salting programs in the workplace is to disrupt the business of non-union employers. The Court held that any claims of improper conduct by the professional organizers could be addressed through non-discriminatory enforcement of the employer's disciplinary policies. The Court reiterated that employers were not required to suffer unlawful or unproductive activities by union agents, referring to existing case law on permissible employer responses to employee misconduct.
Employers remain entitled to hire the best qualified applicants for their workforces.
Employers also remain entitled to fire anyone who does not do his or her job or who violates legitimate, non-discriminatory work rules. However, the Court's decision, combined with other NLRB holdings, increases the likelihood that non-union employers will be confronted with litigation if they reject or discharge union salting agents. Recent Congressional hearings have revealed widespread abuse of the NLRB charge filing process, with documented instances of falsified testimony and baseless charges by the professional union agents. Many union agents have demonstrated that their true goal is to harm the companies who have hired them, and not to provide productive work. Therefore, the best response of employers has been to comply scrupulously with the law, to avoid discrimination on the basis of union affiliation, and to train supervisors in the enforcement of legitimate hiring policies and work rules.