Legal Document

481 U.S. 573 107 S.Ct. 2002 95 L.Ed.2d 557 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitionerv.INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 340. No. 85-1924. Argued Feb. 25, 1987. Decided May 18, Syllabus Respondent Union fined two of its members (Schoux and Choate), who worked as supervisors, for violating constitution by working employers that did not have a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. The filed unfair labor practice charges National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging had violated § 8(b)(1)(B) Act (Act), which makes it an union "to restrain or coerce . employer in selection his representatives purposes collective bargaining adjustment grievances." An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed, finding, inter alia, (1) Schoux Choate were supervisors within meaning 2(11) Act, (2) under "reservoir doctrine," they also "collective grievances" covered 8(b)(1)(B), even though neither performed such duties, since form logical "reservoir" from is likely to select future grievance adjustment, (3) restrained coerced relationship at time fines, Union's action could effect forcing quit, since, any event, intended represent employers' employees future. NLRB adopted ALJ's findings conclusions, entered order against Union, sought enforcement Court Appeals. Reversing finding violation, court agreed purposes, but rejected NLRB's conclusion employees. held if does intend complaining employer's employees, there can be no violation when disciplines are designated representatives. Held: A violate supervisor member participate representative whose has into union. Pp. 580-596. (a) discipline supervisor-member prohibited only engages activities—that is, bargaining, some other closely related activity, contract interpretation. violates may adversely affect supervisor's conduct performing adverse exists disciplined behavior occurs while duties. general impact on loyalty insufficient create violation. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Electrical Workers, 417 790, 94 2737, 41 477; American Broadcasting Cos. Writers Guild West, Inc., 437 411, 98 2423, 57 313. involving cannot reconciled Act's structure limited construction Thus, was practice. 580-589. (b) Furthermore, absence between latter enforced no-contract-no-work rule supervisor-members made possibility would too attenuated basis charge. Such will manner perform grievance-adjustment tasks. Nor their Although valued membership less willing serve cost service loss membership, which, turn, limit size pool representatives, this minimal support Moreover, because must accept expulsion continue supervisory position. Since right resign avoid imposition discipline, require leave 589-596. 780 F.2d 1489, (CA9, 1986), affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion Court, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, concurring judgment, post, p. ----. WHITE, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR, joined, Jerrold J. Ganzfried, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Laurence Cohen, respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 question decision whether "restrain[s] coerce[s] grievances," 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(1)(B), adjust contractual grievances, 2 * Royal Electric (Royal) Nutter (Nutter) Contractors Association (NECA). In 1981, last series agreements NECA International Brotherhood Local 340 (IBEW Union), expired. Negotiations new failed shortly thereafter, struck all employers, including Nutter. 3 strike lasted several months. On September 15, sent disclaimer interest "in representing multi-[employer] unit previously established," 271 N.L.R.B. 995, 996 (1984); accepted following day. then petitions seeking 17 single-employer units. Neither nor thereafter file petition 4 attempt units unsuccessful. October 1, signed Independent Unions (NAIU). NECA's NAIU. 5 case arise fines members, Albert Ted Choate, work respectively. fall 1982, internal Union.1 Each found guilty charged; $8,200 $6,000. 6 IBEW, that, fining [their] (NLRA Act), amended, 61 Stat. 140, 158(b)(1)(B). agreed. First, he NLRA.2 He relied so-called doctrine" find part narrower category "[employer] [the of] adjustment" despite fact N.L.R.B., 997 998. Under reservoir doctrine, (NLRB Board) expansively interprets phrase "representativ[e] include 2(11), ground "such individuals 'reservoir' adjustment." Id., 997. might selected these tasks therefore sufficient classify him her representative. 7 ALJ further determined aside "granted off resolved personal complaints problems regarding job assignments." Ibid. Board's broad interpretation term grievances "as used both Section so 8 reasoning, acted 8(b)(1)(B). " 'the reasonably foreseeable Union's] cease working' non-signatory employer, 'thereby depriving services chosen representative.' 1000 (quoting Plumbers 364, 254 1123, 1125 (1981)). Consequently, decided Nutter, bargaining. 1002. 9 Finally, argument occur disciplined. IBEW argued represented company incentive influence company's choice representative, performance reasons. concluded irrelevant interfere nonetheless services. Second, inapplicable seek date. 10 conclusions. It ordered rescind levied expunge records disciplinary taken them, post appropriate notices. November 8, 1984, Appeals Ninth Circuit. 11 rejected, however, did, fact, Nutter.3 As result, reversed holding "when employees[,] representatives." 1492 (CA9 1986). previous 714 870, 871 1980), where reasoned "ha[s] either employer's] supervisor-member's] employer]." We granted certiorari, 479 811, 58, 93 18 (1986), resolve conflict Circuits.4 now affirm. II 12 first review Appeals' To address issue, necessary retrace briefly treatment NLRA provides: 13 "It shall organization agents— 14 "(1) (B) 15 This section enacted prevent exerting direct pressure force multiemployer dictate settlement employee grievances. S.Rep. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 21 (1947). 16 For decades after enactment, construed prohibit applied directly compel replace 1968, substantially extended San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172 2173 (Oakland Mailers ). duties performed. "interfer[ed] [employer's] control over representatives" attempting foremen take prounion positions interpreting agreement," "would face de facto nonrepresentation them." 2173-2174. Hence, designed alter performs functions coerces ways. indirect coercion result suggested it, too, activity. indicated expansion Oakland best "within outer limits" section. 805, 2745, 477 (1974). meantime, subsequent decisions than interpretation, adjustment. view, "disciplining whenever engaged management activities, involved" same coercive disciplining 802, S.Ct., 2743. became, eyes Board, "a prohibition union's course interests employers." 19 Power, came abrupt halt; indeed retreat called. read rank-and-file during strike. created restrictive "adverse-effect" test determine violated: 20 "Nowhere legislative history implication Congress extend protection restraint activity thus inescapable one constitute of, acting capacity as, adjuster bargainer behalf employer." U.S., 804-805, 2745 (emphasis added). crossed picket line do stressed "were activities thereto." 2745. 22 Court's language implicitly application adverse-effect test: she duties—that Ibid.5 supported determination representative's recognized "likely effect" make representative] subservient wishes those future." 807, 2746. Nonetheless refused consider potential problem conflicting loyalties design guarantee undivided representatives.6 Based §§ 2(3), 14(a), Act,7 held: "Congress' solution [to 23 loyalties] essentially providing option. hand, liberty demand absolute personnel insisting, pain discharge, in, retain organization. Alternatively, permit join unions, resolving conflicts through traditional procedures But quite apparent, given statutory particular concerns shows motivated enact provision generalized loyalties." 812-813, 2748-49 (citation omitted; footnote omitted). 24 addition, stated assume "the fell test. implicitly, went beyond limits "[i]n cases [where] grievance-adjusting involved." 801-802, 25 Four years later, 313 (1978) (ABC ), enunciated specifically rights 8(b)(1)(B): "[T]he [Florida ] delineated boundaries 'carryover' adjustor bargainer. situations—that felt—the deprived full hence 429, 2434 26 before sustained, factual sanction 430, 2434. 27 ABC, therefore, found, supervisor-member's duty. consistent analysis Power—that forbids acts omissions activities.8 Accordingly, we conclude (e.g., Mailers). 28 One obvious ramification prohibits actually Clearly none. reject relied. above, rationale doctrine workers available date agents adjusters. speculates permitted supervisor-member, without linger, smaller loyal available, restricted purposes. chain suppositions rests, ABC. reveals addressed separate far more n. 21, 2748, 21. need compare scope sections Act: covers "for total class "is defined broader range activities." 30 justification protects pressures discipline.9 Yet engage creating interference hypothetical duties; contemporaneous themselves. precisely vague conflict-of-loyalties concern said charge supra, 2748-2749.10 31 crux ABC inquiry sustained. simply discern existence purely hypothetical.11 32 issue responsibilities protected 8(b)(1)(B).12 someday past speculative been "restrain[ed] coerce[d]" III 33 matter law, precluded liability argues, circumstances, affecting way restricting reasoning analogous Part II, like 34 When handling chores. See establish one, vanish. nothing gain bargaining; expect subject future.13 words, assumption underpinning —that virtue tasks—is applicable continuing union.14 35 primarily long-term dictating latter's representation (single-unit unit). uniform rules occasionally incidental making position desirable. 36 sense (both union) left choose reluctant price payment fines.15 example, pay wage scale, peripheral otherwise be, see 436, 2437, thereby limiting selection. Any imposed willingness sense.16 37 long attraction preclude excluding membership. Again, serve, reluctance give up representatives.17 inconceivable every affects member's narrow 38 masters incurring obligations both; unions receive benefits association bear none obligations.18 grant them immunity rules. 39 recent developments suggest longer supervisor-members. statute itself scheme. difficult maintain problem—that decline align deprive services—is own making. said: 40 "Having afforded opportunity refuse hire discharge involvement affairs, incorporate permissible extent functioning and, indeed, provide additional incentives worthwhile forfeit upon taking positions, having forsaken opportunities, heard argue very permits membership." New York Typographical (Triangle Publications), 216 896, 901 (1975) (member Fanning, dissenting). free themselves threats discipline. But, pointed out, decided, time. "known policy period six months thereafter," plainly recourse supervisor-members] 436-437, 2437. 42 law changed. Recently Pattern Makers NLRB, 473 95, 105 3064, 87 68 (1985), immediately barrier obedience order. least derived merely diminish IV 43 protect integrity processes private dispute-resolution systems national laws place high premium. impermissibly carries out directed whom seeks relationship, Circuit 44 Affirmed. 45 judgment. 46 Because I agree unnecessary (as should Court) reach discussed II. And much III, principally my view Nutter; matter, inadequate overturning representational intent. affirm solely covering 47 unlawful suggests, plain terms governs members. Further, pertains aspect union-employer relationship: Nonetheless, Guild, (ABC), affirmed cross lines contract. asks us approve extension still remote "restraint" "selection" namely, agreement. 48 If whether, deference owe agency determinations, reasonable Government is. defer agencies, however (and apply mere "reasonableness" standard review) statutes, our opinions. decision, it. seems me prior (1968), member-representatives interpret contracts, "outer limits," (1974), certainly go further, accordingly theory circumstances actual affected regard intent Of course, points out: "Direct [i.e., real coercion] always Ante, 590, 13. 49 approach product familiar phenomenon. Once succeeded, benefit excessive judicial deference, expanding language, emboldened presses logic. already sanctioned point departure genuinely statute, finds cut authoritative source ends construing construction. Applied erroneous departure, ordinarily mechanism adherence perversely statute. Some distance down path, comes later incremental step, again rational itself, leads removed text overcome fidelity Chief Burger's remarks United States 200-ft. Reels Film, 413 123, 2665, 500 (1973), nowhere context: 50 "The seductive plausibility single steps evolutionary development legal often perceived until third, fourth, fifth 'logical' occurs. taken, appeared step relation preceded although aggregate end never seriously considered instance. kind gestative propensity calls 'line drawing' judicial, process: 'thus beyond.' 127, 2668. 51 That here. Logic side concur judgment 52 THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 53 majority once substituted fair I, again, respectfully dissent. 813, 2749, (1974) (WHITE, 54 member, serves representative,1 purpose selected. Workers (Royal Co.), (1984). longstanding. Mexico District Council Carpenters Joiners America (A.S. Horner, 177 (1969), enf'd, 454 1116 (CA10 1972). 55 stated, "[t]he function striking [the] balance effectuate delicate responsibility, committed review." 431, 2434, (ABC) (internal quotations sit "super-Board authorized overrule agency's constructions controlling impose views stays charged administering." 816, 2750. done By ensure indicates congressional foreclose applying type presented multi-employer identity adjusting. Amax Coal Co., 453 322, 334-335, 101 2789, 69 672 (1981); 803-804, 2743-2744. There reason why fairly interdiction encompass requiring Mr. Y, preventing selecting anyone employer.2 56 traveled road there: "Union adjustors bargainers, fulfill functions; representative." 2437 mischaracterizes statement "dictum," "unnecessary disposition ABC." 591—592, 15. threatened kept reporting reported 431-436, 2434-37. former group, "restrained being totally [its] strike." 432, 2435. obviously strike; here, issue. cited approvingly claim asserted virtually identical A.S. required 36, 36. Also group employees—directors—who respect unions. lead different "A represents. Organization Masters, Mates Pilots, Marine Division, 197 400 (1972), 159 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 14, 486 1271, 1274 cert. denied, 416 956, 1970, 306 Pilots 539 554, 559-560 (CA5 1976)." 438, 37, 2438, 37. distinguish respondent here ante, 590—591, significance. harm cases—the representative.3 58 attempts asserting imminent undercuts 594-595. significantly renounce received notice calling strike, promoted Nevertheless, option render decision. 437, Clearly, creates tension administration relations. Both power tension, however. expel supervisors4 forbid so, each believes gained accepting interpreted burden certain rules, furtherance federal coercion. disagrees employers; chooses supervisor-members, risk entrusted Constitution "[w]or[k] for, detrimental I.B.E.W." App. 152. 'supervisor' means individual authority, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, assign, reward, responsibility effectively recommend action, connection foregoing exercise authority routine clerical nature, requires use independent judgment." 152(11). uphold rejection demonstrated stated: "We hold interest, organizing efforts, fully year termination effort employer. evidence specific overt picketing, handbilling, statements passing opposition cards desire Here ." 1492-1493 Eleventh non-union 703 501 (1983). present case, 870 (1980), reached opposite conclusion. Commentators scope. See, e.g., Comment, Discipline Supervisor-Members Guild: Equipoise Imbalance?, 1978 S.Ill.U.L.J. 453, 464 ("By intimating protecting overruling Mailers, seemed post-1968 section"); Does Constitute Restraint Coercion Selection Employer Representatives?, 1976 Wis.L.Rev. 866, 882-883: word 'engaged' implies engaging activities. theoretical duties—a fear lack caused honoring line—is cause appear expressed addressed, completely route. Specifically, 1947 amended definition 'employee' 152(3), exclude denominated coverage Act." provides pertinent part: employee, employed supervisor. 152(11), defines "supervisor," set forth 2, supra. 164(a), another resolution conflict-of-loyalty question: "Nothing herein becoming remaining organization, subchapter compelled deem local, relating bargaining." plausible human nature. well wary about crossing unrelated unlikely react altering Cf. Supervisors Who Members Performing Rank-and-File Struck Work Is Not Unfair Practice, Harv.L.Rev. 458, 468 (1973) ("[S]upervisors easily [§ processes"). Insofar dictum suggests inconsistent disavow Rochester Musicians Assn., 514 988, 992-993 (CA2 1975) ("The reservoir] viewed manpower bargainers adjusters representatives"); Erie Newspaper 489 416, 420 (CA3 1973) contends union, Assn. Heat Frost Insulators Asbestos (Cork Insulating 189 854 (1971) ("[T]he [has a] [collective-bargaining grievance] uncoerced prejudiced"). generally Role Employee Unions, U.Chi.L.Rev. 185, (1972). reason, signified demise doctrine: "There surely process plays process, non-supervisory work. insignificant management's 8(b)(1)(B)." 992-993. S.Ill.U.L.J., 475 empowered adjusting functions"); Changing Interpretation 8(b)(1)(B)—Union Aftermath Light, John Marshall Prac. Proc. 117, 126 (1976) ("In short, abolished 'reservoir doctrine' "); cf. (disapproving decided). Harv.L.Rev., 467, 65: "[I]n justify, crucial factor arguably fellow future, clearly significant." alternative grievances—as opposed grievances—he qualified supervisor, doctrine. consequence infra, decide grievance—and "grievance adjustment"—is observe, "particular explicitly activity." 803, 2744. D. Bok Dunlop, Community 220 (1970) ("grievance" "disput[e] contract"). Other Management similarly meaning. 203 204, 173, 174. Wis.L.Rev., 879 Supreme appears [collective adjustment] narrowly"). Direct selective facially might. F.2d, 872 enforcing bylaw selection"). grievance-handling represent. 437-438, 2437-38. (possibly recurrent) needed effective. "willingness serve" unlawful. observed duration id., 435, concluded: fulfilled interfered Scofield 394 423, 89 1154, 385 (1969). involved 8(b)(1)(A) coerce" refrain contains proviso stating "shall impair prescribe acquisition retention therein." upheld broken refraining concluding 8(b)(1)(A), saying: "[Section] 8(b)(1) leaves enforce properly reflects legitimate impairs imbedded laws, escape rule." 1158. allow policy. Gould, Limitations Upon Radiations Allis-Chalmers, 1970 Duke L.J. 1067, 1128-1129 ("If, substantial strikebreakers, ought altered happen positions. thrust institution just effective"). highly ban forbidding saying so. undisputed enacted, many allowed Brief 8. obtaining maintaining believed granting "inconsistent assure freedom domination supervisors" H.R.Rep. 245, anomalous remain open become supervisors. 812, 22, ("[W]hile expectations measure beneficiary advantages secured inherently inequitable strikebreaker sanctions"). holds "representatives" 577, 578-579. raise certiorari prevailed "[w]hether (who bargaining) union." cross-petition challenge brief writ merits. judge us. Senate Report "this subsection removal director delegated settling (1947) contrast, 8(b)(3), 158(b)(3), bargain collectively "provided employees." asserts 593-594. not, broadly. Letter Carriers, 240 519 (1979), adopt rendering letter carriers temporary ineligible capacity, diminished fatal inconsistency excludes regardless primary whereas prohibiting (those union), employers. infringes "policy laws," 592, 16, situation.

Classification Label: 6