Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/373/734
Timestamp: 2015-03-31 03:53:20
Document Index: 676488012

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8']

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
373 U.S. 734 (83 S.Ct. 1453, 10 L.Ed.2d 670)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
[HTML] Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, for petitioner.
The issue here is whether an employer commits an unfair labor practice, National Labor Relations Act s 8(a)(5),
when it refuses to bargain with a certified union over the union's proposal for the adoption of the 'agency shop.' More narrowly, since the employer is not obliged to bargain over a proposal that he commit an unfair labor practice, the question is whether the agency shop is an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) of the Act or else is exempted from the prohibitions of that section by the proviso thereto.
We have concluded that this type of arrangement does not constitute an unfair labor practice and that it is not prohibited by § 8.
Respondent's employees are represented by the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, in a single, multiplant company-wide unit. The 1958 agreement between union and company provides for maintenance of membership and the union shop.
These provisions were not operative, however, in such States as Indiana where state law prohibited making union membership a condition of employment.
In June 1959, the Indiana intermediate appellate court held that an agency shop arrangement would not violate the state right-to-work law. Meade Elec. Co. v. Hagberg, 129 Ind.App. 631, 159 N.E.2d 408. As defined in that opinion, the term 'agency shop' applies to an arrangement under which all employees are required as a condition of employment to pay dues to the union and pay the union's initiation fee, but they need not actually become union members. The union thereafter sent respondent a letter proposing the negotiation of a contractual provision covering Indiana plants 'generally similar to that set forth' in the Meade case. Continued employment in the Indiana plants would be conditioned upon the payment of sums equal to the initiation fee and regular monthly dues paid by the union members. The intent of the proposal, the National Labor Relations Board concluded, was not to require membership but to make membership available at the employees' option and on nondiscriminatory terms. Employees choosing not to join would make the required payments and, in accordance with union custom, would share in union expenditures for strike benefits, educational and retired member benefits, and union publications and promotional activities, but they would not be entitled to attend union meetings, vote upon ratification of agreements negotiated by the union, or have a voice in the internal affairs of the union.
The respondent made no counterproposal, but replied to the union's letter that the proposed agreement would violate the National Labor Relations Act and that respondent must therefore 'respectfully decline to comply with your request for a meeting' to bargain over the proposal.
The union thereupon filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against respondent for its alleged refusal to bargain in good faith. In the Board's view of the record, 'the Union was not seeking to bargain over a clause requiring nonmember employees to pay sums equal to dues and fees as a condition of employment while at the same time maintaining a closed-union policy with respect to applicants for membership,' since the proposal contemplated an arrangement in which 'all employees are given the option of becoming, or refraining from becoming, members of the Union.' Proceeding on this basis and putting aside the consequences of a closed-union policy upon the legality of the agency shop, the Board assessed the union's proposal as comporting fully with the congressional declaration of policy in favor of union-security contracts and therefore a mandatory subject as to which the Act obliged respondent to bargain in good faith. At the same time, it stated that it had 'no doubt that an agency-shop agreement is a permissible form of union-security within the meaning of Sections 7 and 8(a)(3) of the Act.' Accordingly, the Board ruled that respondent had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain in good faith with the certified bargaining representative of its employees,
and it ordered respondent to bargain with the union over the proposed arrangement; no back-pay award is involved in this case. 133 N.L.R.B. 451, 456, 457.
The prevailing administrative and judicial view under the Wagner Act was or came to be that the proviso to § 8(3) covered both the closed and union shop, as well as less onerous union-security arrangements, if they were otherwise legal. The National Labor Relations Board construed the proviso as shielding from an unfair labor practice charge less severe forms of union-security arrangements than the closed or the union shop,
including an arrangement in Public Service Co. of Colorado, 89 N.L.R.B. 418,
requiring nonunion members to pay to the union $2 a month 'for the support of the bargaining unit.' And in Algona Plywood Co. v. Wisconsin Board, 336 U.S. 301, 307, 69 S.Ct. 584, 93 L.Ed. 691, which involed a maintenance of membership agreement, the Court, in commenting on petitioner's contention that the proviso of § 8(3) affirmatively protected arrangements within its scope, cf. Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228, said of its purpose: 'The short answer is that § 8(3) merely disclaims a national policy hostile to the closed shop or other forms of union-security agreement.' (Emphasis added.)
'on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later * * *. Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.' 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3).
Respondent, however, relies upon the express words of the proviso which allow employment to be conditioned upon 'membership': since the union's proposal here does not require actual membership but demands only initiation fees and monthly dues, it is not saved by the proviso. This position, of course, would reject administrative decisions concerning the scope of § 8(3) of the Wagner Act, e.g., Public Service Co. of Colorado, supra, reaffirmed by the Board under the Taft-Hartley amendments, American Seating Co., 98 N.L.R.B. 800.
Moreover, the 1947 amendments not only abolished the closed shop but also made significant alterations in the meaning of 'membership' for the purposes of union-security contracts. Under the second proviso to § 8(a)(3), the burdens of membership upon which employment may be conditioned are expressly limited to the payment of initiation fees and monthly dues. It is permissible to condition employment upon membership, but membership, insofar as it has significance to employment rights, may in turn be conditioned only upon payment of fees and dues. 'Membership' as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core. This Court has said as much before in Radio Officers' Union v. Labor Board, 347 U.S. 17, 41, 74 S.Ct. 323, 336, 98 L.Ed. 455:
We are therefore confident that the proposal made by the union here conditioned employment upon the practical equivalent of union 'membership,' as Congress used that term in the proviso to § 8(a)(3).
The proposal for requiring the payment of dues and fees imposes no burdens not imposed by a permissible union shop contract and compels the performance of only those duties of membership which are enforceable by discharge under a union shop arrangement. If an employee in a union shop unit refuses to respect any union-imposed obligations other than the duty to pay dues and fees, and membership in the union is therefore denied or terminated, the condition of 'membership' for § 8(a)(3) purposes is nevertheless satisfied and the employee may not be discharged for nonmembership even though he is not a formal member.
Of course, if the union chooses to extend membership even though the employee will meet only the minimum financial burden, and refuses to support or 'join' the union in any other affirmative way, the employee may have to become a 'member' under a union shop contract, in the sense that the union may be able to place him on its rolls.
See, e.g., M. & J. Tracy, Inc., 12 N.L.R.B. 916, 931934; J. E. Pearce Contracting & Stevedoring Co., Inc., 20 N.L.R.B. 1061, 10701073. And see the memorandum printed by the Senate committee, commenting upon the final bill, which indicated that the exemption of the proviso was not limited to the closed or union shop:
'As the legislative history of (N.I.R.A. s) 7(a) demonstrates, nothing in that section was intended to deprive labor of its existing rights in many States to contract or strike for a closed or preferential shop * * *. No reason appears for a contrary view here.' 1 Leg.Dist.N.L.R.A. 13541355.
Union Starch & Ref. Co. v. Labor Board, 186 F.2d 1008 (C.A.7th Cir.). See also Labor Board v. Food Fair Stores, 307 F.2d 3 (C.A.3d Cir.); Labor Board v. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 290 F.2d 99 (C.A.2d Cir.); Labor Board v. Local 450, International Union of Operating Engineers, 281 F.2d 313, 316317 (C.A.5th Cir.); N.L.R.B. v. National Automotive Fibres, Inc., 277 F.2d 779 (C.A.9th Cir.); Labor Board v. Die & Tool Makers Lodge, 231 F.2d 298 (C.A.7th Cir.); Labor Board v. Mechanics Educational Society of America, 222 F.2d 429 (C.A.6th Cir.); Labor Board v. Pape Broadcasting Co., 217 F.2d 197 (C.A.5th Cir.); Labor Board v. Philadelphia Iron Works, 211 F.2d 937 (C.A.3d Cir.); Labor Board v. Eclipse Lumber Co., 199 F.2d 684 (C.A.9th Cir.); Utley Company, 108 N.L.R.B. 295, enforced, 217 F.2d 885 (C.A.6th Cir.); Washington Waterfront Employers, 98 N.L.R.B. 284, enforced, 211 F.2d 946 (C.A.9th Cir.); Electric Auto-Lite Co., 92 N.L.R.B. 1073, enforced, 196 F.2d 500 (C.A.6th Cir.).