Opinion ID: 432214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Modern Management's Liability under the NLRA

Text: 59 The Union seeks to hold the consulting firm hired by Saint Francis responsible for the unfair labor practices committed by Hospital supervisors. According to the Union, 2M knowingly participated and consciously assisted in the effectuation of those unfair labor practices. See NLRB v. Gluek Brewing Co., 144 F.2d 847, 855 (8th Cir.1944). 60 Modern Management is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the NLRA and therefore subject to the provisions of the Act. See 29 U.S.C. Secs. 152(6) and (7) (1976). A statutory employer may violate section 8(a)(1) with respect to employees other than his own. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 510 n. 3, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 1032 n. 3, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976). In this case, however, it is undisputed that 2M had no direct contact with any of the Hospital's non-supervisory employees who were the target of the Union's organizational campaign. 263 NLRB at 848-49. The question, therefore, is whether 2M can be held responsible under the Act for the unfair labor practices committed by the Hospital's supervisors. The Board's conclusion that, under the circumstances of this case, 2M is not liable for the supervisors' unlawful conduct is supported by substantial evidence. 61 As the Hospital's advisor, Modern Management directed the anti-Union campaign at Saint Francis in the fall of 1979. Id. at 848. Saint Francis gave 2M access to Hospital facilities and instructed its supervisory employees to accept the advice and carry out the instructions of ... 2M representatives. Id. at 849. Representatives of 2M did not contact non-supervisory employees directly, but they advised Hospital supervisors on how to approach such employees. 62 Although 2M provided considerable guidance to Hospital supervisors, the ALJ found--and the Board agreed--that 2M did not instruct or advise those supervisors to violate the Act. Specifically, the ALJ found that 2M did not instruct the supervisors to engage in unlawful interrogation or to ask the nurses how they intended to vote. Id. at 850. Nor were supervisors told to mention employee names when reporting the general reactions. Id. The Union claims that these findings were incorrect and points to testimony in the record indicating that a supervisor was asked by 2M representatives to report who was for and who was against the Union. But that testimony was contradicted by another supervisor who claimed that 2M exhorted the supervisors not to ask employees if they were for or against the Union. Considering the record as a whole, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that 2M did not advise or otherwise encourage the supervisors to engage in unlawful conduct. 63 This case is a far cry from NLRB v. Gluek Brewing Co., 144 F.2d 847 (8th Cir.1944), where an independent contractor was found guilty of committing unfair labor practices. Gluek operated a brewing company and employed its own drivers to deliver the beer locally. A labor controversy between the two warring unions that sought to represent Gluek's drivers led to the disruption of Gluek's deliveries. Gluek subsequently contracted with a trucking company to make the deliveries for Gluek. The contractor's drivers were members of one of the warring unions. Not only did the contractor know of the controversy, [i]t knew in taking over the delivery for Gluek that it would really determine that conflict. 144 F.2d at 856. The court concluded that [s]uch conscious interference was an unfair labor practice. Id. In contrast, 2M advised Saint Francis on the lawful means it could use to encourage employees to vote against the Union. Its mere presence in the Hospital as an advisor during the campaign did not constitute unlawful interference with the protected rights of Hospital employees. 64 Not only did 2M advise the supervisors to engage in lawful conduct, the Board's position is further supported by the fact that Saint Francis retained ultimate authority over the conduct of its supervisors. There is no allegation that 2M acted as the Hospital's agent in advising the supervisors. Nor was any evidence introduced indicating that 2M could make or implement any employment decisions on behalf of the hospital or assume or exercise any of its managerial rights or duties. 263 NLRB at 849. See A.M. Steigerwald Co., 236 NLRB 1512 (1978); Fabric Services, Inc., 190 NLRB 540 (1971). In light of these circumstances, and particularly in light of the fact that 2M did not advise or instruct the supervisors to violate the Act, we uphold the Board's dismissal of the complaint against 2M.