Document: 360 U.S. 203 79 S.Ct. 1015. 3 L.Ed.2d 1175 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.CABOT CARBON COMPANY and Cabot Shops, Inc. No. 329. Argued March 24, 1959. Decided June 8, [Syllabus from 203-204 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas J. McDermott, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Haywood H. Hillyer, respondents. Justice WHITTAKER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question decision in this case is whether 'Employee Committees' established supported by respondents at each their several plants stated purposes meeting regularly with management to consider discuss problems mutual interest, including grievances, handling 'grievances nonunion departments,' are, light declared actual practices, 'labor organizations' within meaning § 2(5) National Labor Relations Act.1 2 Respondents are affiliated corporations under same general maintain principal office Pampa, Texas. They many years have been, engaged operating a number plants, principally Texas Louisiana, primarily manufacturing selling carbon black oil field equipment. Pursuant suggestion War Production Board 1943, decided establish an Employee Committee plants. To that end, prepared, collaboration employee representatives set bylaws, stating purposes, duties functions proposed Committees, transmittal adoption employees establishing such Committees. bylaws were adopted majority plant respondents, and, thus, Committees established. Those certain related company rules, later published manual called 'The Guide,' still effect. In essence, state: purpose provide procedure considering employees' ideas interest management;2 shall consist (ranging 3) whose terms be one year, retiring members, help clerks, will conduct nomination election successors; meet regular monthly meetings all special management, assist solving time so spent considered worked; 'It Committee's responsibility to: * Handle grievances departments according up these departments.'3 4 November 1954, International Chemical Workers Union, AFL CIO, filed Board, times amended, unfair labor practice charge against alleging, part, unlawfully dominating, interfering supporting organizations, Thereafter April 1956, issued complaint 10(b) Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b), 29 U.S.C.A. 160(b)) alleging inter alia, organizations (see note 1), since May had dominated, interfered with, violation 8(a)(2) Act.4 5 After hearing, trial examiner his intermediate report containing detailed findings fact. relevant findings, mainly based on undisputed evidence, may summarized as follows: prepared manner, contain provisions, above stated. During period here involved (from 1954 date hearing before 1956), addition discussing respondents' officials nature covered made discussed proposals requests respecting other aspects relationship, seniority, job classifications, bidding, makeup time, overtime records, cards, merit system, wage corrections, working schedules, holidays, vacations, sick leave, improvement facilities conditions. Respondents' participated those discussions some instances granted requests.5 Although not provided 'Central Committee,' consisting chairmen met annually Director Industrial Texas, where, during 1955 1956 meetings, Central respect matters covering nearly whole scope employment relationship.6 requests, feasibility economic consequences point view, sought reach solution. he expressed approval or promised see what could done toward them, suggested matter taken local rejected explained reasons doing so. 6 also found no membership requirements, collect dues funds; clerks conducting elections do clerical work; pay necessary expenses None has ever attempted negotiate collective bargaining contract From certified independent exclusive agents units approximately one-third units, respective entered into contracts which, they been Since dates coexisted but generally reduced efficiency, production promotion who included units. 7 Upon concluded 2(5), 4). He therefore recommended ordered cease conduct, withdraw recognition from, completely disestablish, 'as representative any (their) dealing concerning disputes, wages, rates pay, hours employment, conditions work.' conclusions recommendations its order accordingly. 117 N.L.R.B. 1633. 8 then petitioned Court Appeals review vacate Board's order, answer enforcement order. denied it aside. 256 F.2d 281. It dominated held 1) because thought (a) term 'dealing with,' used section, means 'bargaining 'aboid(ed) usual concept bargaining,' (b) provisions legislative history 1947 amendment 9(a) Act, 159(a) show Congress, effect, excluded committees definition organization' contained 2(5). F.2d, pages 285—289. Because asserted conflict decisions Courts Appeals, importance proper administration we certiorari. 358 863, 98, 97. 9 We turn first Appeals' holding committee which does 'bargain with' employers 'the bargaining' engage employers, Our study convinced us there nothing plain words history, construing it, supports conclusion. 10 Section includes of'la bor 'employee representation plan exists purpose, work.'7 (Emphasis added.) Certainly section indicates broad read synonymous more limited with.' See e.g., v. Jas. Matthews & Co., Cir., 156 706, 708, Indiana Metal Products Corp. 202 613, 620—621. strongly confirms Congress did understand intend synonymous. When original print 1935 Wagner bill (S.1958) was being Senate, Secretary if adopted, would given now ascribed Appeals. proposal collectively' substituted 'dealing.'8 But adopted.9 quite clear adopting 'dealing' rejecting collectively,' should mean only Appeals.10 Construing uniformly plans, whatever name called, functioned similarly here, defined statute.11 With full knowledge Act,12 judicial interpretation, Taft-Hartley re-enacted without change.13 before, functioning 2(5).14 11 error company-dominated exist part least (256 285), 'of work,' organizations,' simply bargaining.' 12 Consideration shows existed least, cannot be, not, disputed that, accepted both undertook 'responsibility to,' did, '(h)andle (with behalf employees) grievance (by respondents) departments' 3). can express existed, *.' This alone brings squarely statutory organizations.' 13 Moreover, although none formal Committee-Management involved, classification, discussion frequently 5). Also, relationship commonly dealt 6). Committee, them others, explaining say activities matters, because, argue, amounted final remained true 'dealing,' organization.' distinction lies unfettered power former insist upon requests. 708.15 Whether consideration action constitute page think dea ling subjects, 14 conclude practices unless, contend, 9(a), legal eliminated contention. 15 House passed H.R. 3020, known 'Hartley Bill,' among things, new designated 8(d)(3), providing: 16 '(d) Notwithstanding provision following evidence Act: 17 '(3) Forming maintaining employer conditions, recognized 9.'16 18 Senate amended 3020 substituting own bill, S. 1126, 'Taft Bill.'17 corresponding 8(d)(3) House, propose (49 Stat. 453) adding proviso read: 19 'Provided, That individual group right present employer' 20 21 'and adjusted, intervention representative, long adjustment inconsistent collective-bargaining agreement effect: Provided further, opportunity adjustment.'18 22 Thereupon requested conference.19 conferees reported measure, partly entirely provisions.20 finally agreed House's similar language, Senate's 9(a). 23 reporting elimination that: 24 'Section act construed prohibiting forming representative. omitted conference permits groups conferenceagr eement grievances.'21 25 Houses eventually became law.22 26 fact permitted form contend intended accomplish consequence, employer, legally referred 8(d) (3) advocated House. 27 argument treats though rather than And overlooks facts Conference Report itself make change' organization,'23 pointed out Senator Taft, specifically attempts 'amend subsection 8(2) (of Act) relating unions' left prohibitions 'unchanged.'24 employees, grievances. On contrary provides, substance, personally one, present. thus evident authorizes employer-dominated 28 indicate thereby eliminate 8(a)(2). argue hold prevent abridge freedom speech First Amendment Constitution. impose bar; merely precludes organizations. 30 judgment reversed cause remanded further proceedings opinion. 31 Reversed remanded. 61 138, 152(5), 152(5) provides: organization anykin d, agency plan, participate Examples to, safety; increased efficiency production; conservation supplies, materials, equipment; encouragement ingenuity initiative; departments. As Guide applicable summary, employee's duty consult Foreman, Assistant Plant Superintendent Superintendent, facts. If, after having so, believes just prepare writing statement send copies attaching recommendations, District department head Department company. Within five days receipt head, both, problem announce decision. If feels fairly settled appeal General Manager who, days, 140, 158(a)(2), '(a) employer— '(2) dominate interfere formation contribute financial support it; Provided, subject rules regulations pursuant 6, prohibited permitting confer him loss Among change seniority system where desired change; longer notice periods jobs bid; permit early leave week ends; annual basis allocating overtime; install vents roofs warehouses. subjects for: vacation weeks years' service; leave; disability benefit plan; amendments holidays; establishment financing educational program; granting leaves absence wishing attend college; furnishing work clothing; policy shiftmen lost; creation cass ifications, resulting higher wages; opportunities transfer another; payment wages while attending Guard camps; making day shiftworkers gangs increase. phrased very broadly independence guaranteed protected extend deal regard 'grievances, employee-representation plans employers' connection therewith equally application 8.' S.Rep. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 7, reprinted Legislative History 1935, p. 2306. (The latter publication hereafter cited, example, Leg.Hist. (1935) 2306.) Hearings Education S.1958, 66—67, 1442—1443. S.1958 (2d print), 4, 2287. comparison 2926 (73d Cong.) 1958 (74th Cong.), pp. 1, 22—23, 1320, 1347. American Furnace 158 376, 378; 707—708; C. Nelson Mfg. 120 444, 445. Compare Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 261, 268—269, 58 571, 575, 82 L.Ed. 831; Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock 308 241, 246—248, 60 203, 206—207, 84 219. 49 450. 152(5). Pacemaker 260 880, 883 (where Seventh Circuit expressly disagreed ruling below); Sand ard Coil 224 465, 467—468, 51 A.L.R.2d 1268; Stow 217 900, 903—904; Sharples Chemicals, Inc., 209 645, 651—652; N.L.R.B., 621; Harrison Sheet Steel Co. 194 407, 410; Shoe Corp., 192 504, 507. Associated Machines, 219 433. court said: 'Respondent says Junior deal, management. Final always when claim well organized, good sized union, doubtless influenced recommendation board itself, selected fighting arms.' 708. 80th 26, (1947) 183. Sess., 99. 86, 244; 143, 159(a), 159(a). 93 Cong.Rec. 5298, 1522. H.R.Conf.Rep. 510, 505. 45, 549. 136 et seq., 151 seq. 33, 537. 6600, 1539.

Category: 6