Opinion ID: 393167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: THE NLRB's INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 8(b)(1)(A)

Text: 15 As we have seen, the NLRB concedes that Helton's activities on behalf of PROD are encompassed by Section 7 of the Act. 31 It further concedes that under Section 8(a)(1) an employer may not prohibit employees from posting union materials on its bulletin board when it allows them access to the board for other purposes. 32 The NLRB reasons, however, that Section 8(b)(1)(A) is far more narrow than Section 8(a)(1); it only proscribes union conduct that involves threats of violence, economic reprisal, or discipline. To support this position it points out that Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not contain the words interfere with. 16 We find that Section 8(b)(1)(A)'s prohibition against restraint or coercion does apply to the union conduct at issue here; its range of application is not limited to union conduct involving threats of violence or economic coercion. 33 The NLRB's narrow interpretation is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute and with the legislative history, is not supported by Supreme Court decisions or the NLRB's own precedent, and is fraught with practical difficulties. 17
18 As a preliminary matter, the meaning of a statute should be sought in the language in which it is framed. See Local 1976, United Brhd of Carpenters & Joiners v. NLRB, 357 U.S. 93, 100, 78 S.Ct. 1011, 1016, 2 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1958); see also Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 411, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2369, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1976); Internat'l Brhd of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 566 n.20, 99 S.Ct. 790, 800 n.20, 58 L.Ed.2d 808 (1979); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917). The action taken by the union here certainly falls within the plain meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). When the union removed Helton's literature from the bulletin board, it restrained him in the exercise of his Section 7 rights, at least as the word restraint is commonly understood. 34 19 As the NLRB emphasizes, however, interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) cannot be governed solely by reliance on the statutory language. The Taft-Hartley Act, which added Section 8(b)(1)(A) to the National Labor Relations Act, was the result of conflict and compromise between strong contending forces and deeply held views on the role of organized labor in the free economic life of the Nation and the appropriate balance to be struck between the uncontrolled power of management and labor to further their respective interests. Local 1976, United Brhd of Carpenters & Joiners v. NLRB, supra, 357 U.S. at 99-100, 78 S.Ct. at 1016. 35 Thus the Supreme Court has stated that interpretations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) must be guided not just by the section's literal language, but also by an understanding of the congressional purpose. NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 175, 179, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 2005-06, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967); NLRB v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639, 362 U.S. 274, 292, 80 S.Ct. 706, 716, 4 L.Ed.2d 710 (1960). 36 Our review of the legislative history fails to convince us that Congress intended Section 8(b)(1)(A) to apply solely to union conduct involving threats of violence, economic reprisal, or discipline. 20 The sponsors of the Taft-Hartley Act, in explaining their proposed legislation, focused primarily on the need to control union violence and economic coercion. For example, Senator Taft, in responding to a request for examples of the sort of conduct that Section 8(b)(1)(A) would prohibit, described threats of bodily harm, mass picketing in organization campaigns, and coercion that prevented employees not involved in a labor dispute from going to work. 93 Cong.Rec. 4435-4436 (1947), 2 Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Leg.Hist.) 1205-1206 (1948). See also 93 Cong.Rec. 4016-4017, 4271, 4432, 4434, 2 Leg.Hist. 1018-1021, 1139, 1199, 1203 (remarks of Senator Ball). However, nothing in the legislative history supports the conclusion that violence and economic reprisal were the sole evils at which Section 8(b)(1)(A) was aimed. Rather, it appears that Congress intended Section 8(b)(1)(A) to cover a range of conduct as broad as that covered by Section 8(a)(1). Senator Ball, a co-sponsor of the legislation, stated that the purpose of the amendment is very simple. It is to insert an unfair-labor practice for unions identical with the first unfair labor practice prohibited to employers in the present act   . 93 Cong.Rec. 4016 (1947), 2 Leg.Hist. 1018 (emphasis added). See also 93 Cong.Rec. 4021, 4023, 4025, 4436 (1947), 2 Leg.Hist. 1028, 1031, 1032, 1207; S.Rep.No.105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 50, 1 Leg.Hist. 456. 21 Omission of the words interfere with from Section 8(b)(1)(A) was not intended to indicate that union conduct should be measured against a less demanding standard than employer conduct. The legislation as originally proposed contained these words. They were deleted because it was feared that they would unduly restrict union organization campaigns; they might be construed to mean that any conversation, any persuasion, any urging on the part of any person, in an effort to persuade another to join a labor organization, would constitute an unfair labor practice. 93 Cong.Rec. 4399 (1947), 2 Leg.Hist. 1138 (remarks of Senator Ives). Senator Taft agreed to the deletion because he was convinced it would have no effect on the application of Section 8(b)(1)(A): 22 I have consulted with the attorneys and they tell me that elimination of the words interfere with would not, so far as they know, have any effect on the court decisions. Eliminating those words would not make any substantial change in the meaning.    23 Id. (remarks of Senator Taft). Similarly, Senator Ball stated that the words 'interfere with' are very vague, that even with respect to employers no complaint is ever issued on the interference angle, and that, because union organizational activities might be affected, it is important that such vague language be eliminated   . 93 Cong.Rec. 4399 (1947), 2 Leg.Hist. 1139 (remarks of Senator Ball). 24
25 The NLRB argues that the Supreme Court decisions interpreting Section 8(b)(1) (A), which rely in part on the legislative history, support the position it has adopted here. We disagree. These decisions do not hold that Section 8(b)(1) (A) only proscribes union conduct involving threats of violence, intimidation, or economic reprisal. 26 The NLRB relies heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639, supra. In that case the Court held that peaceful recognitional picketing by a labor union did not restrain or coerce employees within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). The NLRB points out that in reaching this conclusion the Court reviewed the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act and concluded that the chief evil at which Section 8(b)(1) (A) was aimed was the elimination of the use of repressive tactics bordering on violence or involving particularized threats of economic reprisal. 362 U.S. at 287, 80 S.Ct. at 714. The Court then emphasized the peaceful nature of the picketing in question. The NLRB suggests that by adopting this line of reasoning the Supreme Court endorsed a narrow interpretation of Section 8(b)(1) (A). However, the Court never expressly held that the sole purpose of Section 8(b)(1)(A) was to prevent union violence 37 ; in particular, it never suggested that Section 8(b)(1)(A) might not apply to union conduct lying somewhere between threats of violence and simple peaceful persuasion. In fact, the Supreme Court decided to uphold peaceful recognitional picketing primarily because provisions in the House version of the bill that would have explicitly prohibited such picketing were deleted in conference. The Court also relied on statements in the Senate debates clearly indicating that the bill's sponsors did not intend it to apply to peaceful methods of persuasion. 362 U.S. at 287-289, 80 S.Ct. at 713-715. 38 27 Although Drivers Local 639 might be read as containing some support for the NLRB's narrow interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), a subsequent decision significantly undercut that support. In Internat'l Ladies' Garment Wkrs Union v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731, 738, 81 S.Ct. 1603, 1607-08, 6 L.Ed.2d 762 (1961), the Supreme Court stated: 28 In the Taft-Hartley law, Congress added § 8(b)(1)(A) to the (National Labor Relations) Act, prohibiting, as the Court of Appeals held, unions from invading the rights of employees under § 7 in a fashion comparable to the activities of employers prohibited under § 8(a)(1).    It was the intent of Congress to impose upon unions the same restrictions which the (National Labor Relations) Act imposed on employers with respect to violations of employee rights. 29 (Emphasis added; citation and footnote omitted.) The Court then held that, just as an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) by granting exclusive bargaining representative status to a union that does not have majority support, so also a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) by accepting such status. 39 30 The NLRB also relies on the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., supra, 388 U.S. 175, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123. In that case the Court held that a union did not violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it fined its members for violating union membership rules. As the NLRB correctly points out, this union conduct would seem to fall within the literal meaning of the terms restrain or coerce. However, the Court did not approve the union fines because it believed that the words restrain or coerce should be given a narrow interpretation. 40 Rather, the Court decided to protect the union's conduct because it concluded that Congress had not intended to regulate internal union affairs. It noted that Section 8(b)(1) (A) contains an internal union affairs proviso, which states that the section shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership(.) 41 The NLRB did not rely on this proviso in reaching its decision here. In any event, as we explain in Part III infra, we do not believe that the proviso protects the union's conduct.
31 The NLRB further argues that it has consistently held that Section 8(b)(1)(A) applies only to union conduct involving threats of violence, economic coercion, or discipline. If this were true, deference to the agency interpretation might be appropriate. An administrative agency's consistent, longstanding interpretation of the statute under which it operates is entitled to considerable weight. 42 Internat'l Brhd of Teamsters v. Daniel, supra, 439 U.S. at 566 n.20, 99 S.Ct. at 800 n.20; United States v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, 422 U.S. 694, 719, 95 S.Ct. 2427, 2442-43, 45 L.Ed.2d 486 (1975); Saxbe v. Bustos, 419 U.S. 65, 74, 95 S.Ct. 272, 279, 42 L.Ed.2d 231 (1974); Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617, 626-627, 91 S.Ct. 1091, 1097, 28 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). Even in its own decisions, however, the NLRB has not relied on a narrow interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A); the NLRB has never before held that the section applies only to threats of violence, economic reprisal, or discipline. 43 32 The NLRB has pointed out that the central focus of the congressional debate over the Taft-Hartley Act was on union tactics involving physical violence and economic coercion. See Nat'l Maritime Union (v. N.L.R.B.), 78 NLRB 971, 982-987, enforced, 175 F.2d 686 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 954, 70 S.Ct. 492, 94 L.Ed. 589 (1949). 44 Moreover, it has consistently held that union violence and intimidation violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e. g., NLRB v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 540 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1039, 97 S.Ct. 736, 50 L.Ed.2d 750 (1976) (enforcing NLRB order); Nat'l Cash Register Co. v. NLRB, 405 F.2d 497 (6th Cir. 1972) (same). And the Board has held that economic coercion is unacceptable under Section 8(b)(1)(A). See, e. g., Teamsters Local 1040, 174 NLRB 1153 (1969). 45 However, the NLRB has also found Section 8(b)(1)(A) violations in situations where the union had not threatened discipline or other retribution. 33 For example, in Internat'l Union of Elec., Radio & Machine Wkrs, Local 601, 180 NLRB 1062 (1970), an employee sought to exercise his Section 7 right to refuse to authorize a payroll dues deduction and to tender his dues by personal check instead. The union refused to accept his checks. The ALJ found that the union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) in part because he believed the union's conduct constituted an implied threat to the employee's job. In adopting the ALJ's proposed order the NLRB rejected this finding of an implied threat, stating we do not find it necessary to rely on any surrounding threatening circumstances. Id. at 1062. The simple fact that the union had prevented the employee from exercising his Section 7 right to refuse to allow a payroll deduction was sufficient to support a finding of an unfair labor practice. Id. 46 Similarly, in General Motors Corp., 168 NLRB 1723 (1966), and General Motors Corp., 147 NLRB 509 (1964), the NLRB held that a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it agreed to contractual provisions banning distribution of rival unions' literature during nonworktimes and in nonworking areas. The union's conduct in these cases, which presented an issue closely related to the issue we confront here, clearly did not involve threats of economic coercion. 47 34
35 We also believe that the NLRB's interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) poses substantial practical problems. The NLRB, the unions, and the courts would be required to distinguish between conduct that restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, but does not involve threats of violence or economic reprisal, and conduct that restrains or coerces employees and also involves threats of violence or economic reprisal. This line-drawing exercise, which would be unnecessary if the plain meaning of the statute controlled, would require resolution of difficult issues of fact. 48 36 The facts of this case help illustrate the potential difficulties. The NLRB, which emphasized that no disciplinary action was ever taken against Helton, apparently believes that the union's conduct cannot be viewed as intimidation. 49 It might be argued, however, that the union's conduct carried an implicit threat, namely, that Helton would be punished if he continued his activities on behalf of PROD. Although this question was apparently not explored at the hearing before the ALJ, it is quite possible that Helton was intimidated by the union's action. Thus, under the NLRB's interpretation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), proper resolution of this case might require determining whether Helton felt threatened, whether his fears were reasonable, and whether the union intended to threaten Helton. 50 All of these questions would be avoided if the statute is interpreted to prohibit any action that restrains an employee in the exercise of his Section 7 rights. 37