Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/278/case.html
Timestamp: 2018-06-19 07:08:39
Document Index: 190375050

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 8']

National Labor Relations Board v. Brown, (full text) :: 380 U.S. 278 (1965) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 380 › National Labor Relations Board v. Brown › Case
National Labor Relations Board v. Brown,
380 U.S. 278 (1965)
The respondents, who are members of a multiemployer bargaining group, locked out their employees in response
Five operators of six retail food stores in Carlsbad, New Mexico, make up the employer group. The stores had bargained successfully on a group basis for many years with Local 462 of the Retail Clerks International Association. Negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement to replace the expiring one began in January, 1960. Agreement was reached by mid-February on all
The Board and the Court of Appeals agreed that the case was to be decided in light of our decision in the so-called Buffalo Linen case, Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union, 353 U. S. 87. There, we sustained the Board's finding that, in the absence of specific proof of unlawful motivation, the use of a lockout by members of a multiemployer bargaining unit in response to a whipsaw strike did
We begin with the proposition that the Act does not constitute the Board as an "arbiter of the sort of economic weapons the parties can use in seeking to gain acceptance of their bargaining demands." Labor Board v.Insurance Agents, 361 U. S. 477, 361 U. S. 497. In the absence of proof of unlawful motivation, there are many economic weapons which an employer may use that either interfere in some measure with concerted employee activities or which are in some degree discriminatory and discourage union membership, and yet the use of such economic weapons does not constitute conduct that is within the prohibition of either § 8(a)(1) or § 8(a)(3). See, e.g., Labor Board v.Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., supra; Labor Board v.Dalton Brick & Tile Co., 301 F.2d 886, 896. Even the Board concedes that an employer may legitimately blunt the effectiveness of an anticipated strike by stockpiling inventories, readjusting contract schedules, or transferring work from one plant to another, even if he thereby makes himself "virtually strike-proof." [Footnote 3] As a general matter, he may completely liquidate his business without violating either § 8(a)(1) or § 8(a)(3), whatever the impact of his action on concerted employee activities. Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., Nos. 37 and 41, decided today, ante, p. 380 U. S. 263. Specifically, he may, in various circumstances, use the lockout as a legitimate economic weapon. See, e.g., Labor Board v.Truck
In the circumstances of this case, we do not see how the continued operations of respondents and their use of temporary replacements imply hostile motivation any more than the lockout itself; nor do we see how they are inherently more destructive of employee rights. Rather, the compelling inference is that that was all part and parcel of respondents' defensive measure to preserve the multiemployer group in the face of the whipsaw strike. Since Food Jet legitimately continued business operations, it is only reasonable to regard respondents' action as evincing concern that the integrity of the employer group was threatened unless they also managed to stay open for business during the lockout. For, with Food Jet open for business and respondents' stores closed, the prospect that the whipsaw strike would succeed in breaking up the employer association was not at all fanciful. The retail food industry is very competitive, and repetitive patronage is highly important. Faced with the prospect of a loss of patronage to Food Jet, it is logical that respondents should have been concerned that one or more of their number might bolt the group and come to terms with the Local, thus destroying the common front essential to multiemployer bargaining. The Court of Appeals correctly pictured the respondents' dilemma in saying,
319 F.2d at 11. Clearly, respondents' continued operations with the use of temporary replacements following the lockout were wholly consistent with a legitimate business purpose.
137 N.L.R.B. at 78. Moreover, the course of action to which the Board would limit the respondents would force them into the position of aiding and abetting the success of the whipsaw strike, and consequently would render "largely illusory," 137 N.L.R.B. at 78-79, the right of lockout recognized by Buffalo Linen; the right would be meaningless if barred to nonstruck stores that find it necessary to operate because the struck store does so.
Nor does the record show any basis for concluding that respondents violated § 8(a)(3). Under that section, both discrimination and a resulting discouragement of union membership are necessary, but the added element of unlawful intent is also required. In Buffalo Linen itself, the employers treated the locked-out employees less favorably because of their union membership, and this may have tended to discourage continued membership, but we rejected the notion that the use of the lockout violated the statute. The discriminatory act is not, by itself, unlawful unless intended to prejudice the employees' position because of their membership in the union; some element of anti-union animus is necessary. See Radio Officers' Union v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17, 347 U. S. 42-44; Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301
Page 380 U. S. 287
U.S. 1 at 301 U. S. 46. We have determined that the "real motive" of the employer in an alleged § 8(a)(3) violation is decisive, Associated Press v. Labor Board, 301 U. S. 103, 301 U. S. 132; if any doubt still persisted, we laid it to rest in Radio Officers' Union v. Labor Board, supra, where we reviewed the legislative history of the provision and concluded that Congress clearly intended the employer's purpose in discriminating to be controlling. Id. at 347 U. S. 44. See also Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. Co., ante at 380 U. S. 275-276; American Ship Building Co. v. Labor Board, post at 380 U. S. 311-313; Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Labor Board, 365 U. S. 667, 365 U. S. 674-676.
We recognize that, analogous to the determination of unfair practices under § 8(a)(1), when an employer practice is inherently destructive of employee rights and is not justified by the service of important business ends, no specific evidence of intent to discourage union membership is necessary to establish a violation of § 8(a)(3). This principle, we have said, is "but an application of the common law rule that a man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct." Radio Officers' Union v. Labor Board, supra, at 347 U. S. 45. For example, in Labor Board v.Erie Resistor Corp., supra, we held that an employer's action in awarding superseniority to employees who worked during a strike was discriminatory conduct that carried with it its own indicia of improper intent. The only reasonable inference that could be drawn by the Board from the award of superseniority -- balancing the prejudicial effect upon the employees against any asserted business purpose -- was that it was directed against the striking employees because of their union membership; conduct so inherently destructive of employee interests could not be saved from illegality by an asserted overriding business purpose pursued in good faith. But where, as here, the tendency to discourage union membership is comparatively slight, and the employers'
We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondents' conduct here clearly fits into the latter category, where actual subjective intent is determinative and where the Board must find from evidence independent of the mere conduct involved that the conduct was primarily motivated by an anti-union animus. While the use of temporary nonunion personnel in preference to the locked-out union members is discriminatory, we think that any resulting tendency to discourage union membership is comparatively remote, and that this use of temporary personnel constitutes a measure reasonably adapted to the effectuation of a legitimate business end. Here, discontent on the part of the Local's membership in all likelihood is attributable largely to the fact that the membership was locked out as the result of the Local's whipsaw strategem. But the lockout itself is concededly within the rule of Buffalo Linen. We think that the added dissatisfaction, with its resultant pressure on membership, attributable to the fact that the nonstruck employers remain in business with temporary replacements is comparatively insubstantial. First, the replacements were expressly used for the duration of the labor dispute only; thus, the displaced employee could not have looked upon the replacements as threatening their jobs. At most, the union would be forced to capitulate and return its members to work on terms which, while not as desirable as hoped for, were still better than under the old contract.
When the resulting harm to employee rights is thus comparatively slight, and a substantial and legitimate business end is served, the employers' conduct is prima facie lawful. Under these circumstances, the finding of an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) requires a showing of improper subjective intent. Here, there is no assertion by either the union or the Board that the respondents were motivated by anti-union animus, nor is there any evidence that this was the case. On the contrary, the background of the employer association's relations with the union and all the circumstances of the respondents' behavior during the dispute tend to support the contrary conclusion: the history of labor relations between the employers and the Local divulges that the relationship has always been more than amicable;
It is argued, finally, that the Board's decision is within the area of its expert judgment, and that, in setting it aside, the Court of Appeals exceeded the authorized scope of judicial review. This proposition rests upon our statement in Buffalo Linen that, in reconciling the conflicting interests of labor and management, the Board's determination is to be subjected to "limited judicial review." 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 96. When we used the phrase "limited judicial review," we did not mean that the balance struck by the Board is immune from judicial examination and reversal
in proper cases. [Footnote 5] Courts are expressly empowered to enforce, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part, the Board's orders, except that the findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. National Labor Relations Act, as amended, §§ 10(e), (f), 29 U.S.C. §§ 160(e), (f) (1958 ed.). Courts should be "slow to overturn an administrative decision," Labor Board v.Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105, 351 U. S. 112, but they are not left "to "sheer acceptance" of the Board's conclusions," Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793, 324 U. S. 803. Reviewing courts are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute. Such review is always properly within the judicial province, and courts would abdicate their
I agree with the Court that, given the Buffalo Linen case, Labor Board v.Truck Drivers Union, 353 U.S.
As the Court seems to recognize, ante, p. 380 U. S. 292, n. 6, this would be an entirely different case had the nonstruck employers locked out their employees and hired permanent replacements even if the struck employer had exercised his right to hire permanent replacements under the doctrine of Labor Board v.Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U. S. 333. If the Labor Board determined in such a case that the interference with employee rights was not justified by the legitimate economic interests of the employer, the Labor Board determination might well be controlling. See my concurring opinion in American Ship Building Co. v. Labor Board, post, at 380 U. S. 327. Cf. Labor Board v.Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221. There would be grave doubts as to whether the act of locking out employees and hiring permanent replacements is justified by any legitimate interest of the nonstruck employers, for Buffalo Linen makes clear that the test in such a situation is not whether parity is achieved between struck and nonstruck employers, but, rather, whether the nonstruck employers' actions are necessary to counteract the whipsaw effects of the strike and to preserve the employer
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 313 U. S. 194, and has repeatedly held that the Board may find some conduct sufficiently destructive of concerted activities and union membership as to fall within the broad language of §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) notwithstanding that the employer has a business justification for his actions. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793; Labor Board v.Truck Drivers Union, 353 U. S. 87 (Buffalo Linen); Labor Board v.Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221; Labor Board v.Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U. S. 21. The Board holds that a lockout, together with the hiring of replacements by the nonstruck employers of a multiemployer bargaining unit, violate § 8(a)(1) and (3). The Court decides that this holding is an "unauthorized assumption by an agency of major policy decisions properly made by Congress," ante at p. 380 U. S. 292, and that the "proper balance to be struck between conflicting interests" requires affirmance of the denial of enforcement of the Board's order. This decision represents a departure from the many decisions of this Court holding that the Board has primary responsibility to
One, Buffalo Linen established no unqualified "right" of employers in a multiemployer unit to lock out. Rather, it held that the Board was well within the policy and
Three, the disparity between the struck employer who resumes operations and the nonstruck employers who choose to lock out to maintain a united front is caused by the unilateral action of one of the employer members of the unit, and not by the union's whipsawing tactic. The integrity of the multiemployer unit may be important,
Four, the Court asserts that the right of nonstruck employers to hire temporary replacements, and to refuse to hire union men, is but a concomitant of the right to lock out to preserve the multiemployer group. This sanctification of the multiemployer unit ignores the fundamental rule that an employer may not displace union members with nonunion members solely on account of union membership, the prototype of discrimination under § 8(a)(3), Labor Board v.Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U. S. 333, and may not maintain operations and refuse to retain or hire nonstriking union members, notwithstanding that most of the union members and most of the workers at that very plant are on strike. The struck employer need not continue operations, but, if he does, he may not give a preference to employees not affiliated with the striking union, any more than he may do so after the strike, for § 7 explicitly and unequivocally protects the right of employees to engage and not to engage in a concerted activity, and § 8(a)(3) clearly prohibits discrimination which discourages union membership. See Firth Carpet Co. v. Labor Board, 129 F.2d 633 (C.A.2d Cir.); Labor Board v.Shenandoah-Dives Mining Co., 145 F.2d 542 (C.A.10th Cir.); Labor Board v.Clausen, 188 F.2d 439 (C.A.3d Cir.), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 868; Labor Board v.Anchor Rome Mills, 228 F.2d 775, 780 (C.A.5th Cir.); Labor Board v.Robinson, 251 F.2d 639 (C.A.6th Cir.). If dismissing and replacing nonstriking union members at a struck plant discourages union membership and interferes with concerted activities, I fail to understand how this same conduct at a nonstruck plant, even if in the name of multiemployer parity and unity, has a different effect on employee rights. The employees are not on strike, and desire to work, for whatever reasons, and nothing in the right to lock out can alter these facts.
Finally, I cannot agree with the Court's fundamental premise on which its balance of rights is founded: that a lockout followed by the hiring of nonunion men to operate the plant has but a "slight" tendency to discourage union membership, which includes participation in union activities, Radio Officers' Union v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17, and to impinge on concerted activity generally. This proposition overturns the Board's long held views on the effect of lockouts and dismissal of union members. Moreover, it is difficult to fathom the logic or industrial experience which, on the one hand, dictates that a guarantee to strike replacements that they will not be laid off after a strike is "inherently destructive of employee interests," although based on a legitimate and important business justification, Erie Resistor, 373 U. S. 221, and yet, at the same time, dictates that the dismissal of and refusal to hire nonstriking union members, who desire to work, because other union members working for a different employer have struck, have but a slight unimportant inhibiting effect on the affiliation with the union and on concerted activities. I think the Board's finding that this activity substantially burdens concerted activities and discourages union membership is far more consistent with Erie Resistor and industrial realities. Hence, the Board