Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
440 U.S. 301, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 66, 59 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to provide relevant information to a union for collective bargaining does not require the unconditional disclosure of confidential information such as aptitude tests and employee scores. The National Labor Relations Board must balance the union's need for the information against the employer's legitimate interests in test secrecy and employee confidentiality, and it abuses its discretion when its chosen remedy fails to adequately protect those interests.
Facts:
- Detroit Edison Co. (Company) and the Utility Workers Union (Union) were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement providing that promotions be based on seniority when employees' qualifications and abilities were not significantly different.
- The Company utilized a professionally developed and validated psychological aptitude test battery to screen applicants for the job of "Instrument Man B."
- The Company administered these tests with an express promise to all applicants that their individual test scores would remain confidential.
- In 1971, the Company sought to fill six Instrument Man B positions. Ten employees from the Union's bargaining unit at the Monroe plant applied for the openings.
- All ten applicants failed to achieve a score designated as "acceptable" on the test battery and were consequently rejected for the positions.
- The Company subsequently filled the six positions with applicants from outside the Monroe plant bargaining unit.
- The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the ten rejected applicants, alleging the testing procedure was unfair and violated the collective-bargaining agreement.
- To prepare for arbitration, the Union requested the test battery, answer sheets, and the named applicants' scores, which the Company refused to provide, citing the need for test security and employee privacy.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Detroit Edison Co. with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found for the Union, recommending the Company disclose test scores to the Union and the test battery to a Union-selected psychologist.
- Both parties filed exceptions, and the full NLRB reviewed the case.
- The NLRB modified the ALJ's remedy, ordering the Company to turn over all requested materials—the test battery, answer sheets, and employee-linked scores—directly to the Union, subject to certain confidentiality restrictions.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for enforcement of its order.
- The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enforced the Board's order without modification.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Company's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) abuse its discretion by ordering an employer to unconditionally disclose its confidential employee aptitude test battery, answer sheets, and employee-linked test scores directly to a union for the purpose of processing a grievance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the NLRB abused its discretion. An employer's duty to supply information must be balanced against its legitimate and substantial interests. Regarding the test battery and answer sheets, the Company has an undisputed interest in maintaining test secrecy to ensure the tests' validity. The Board's remedy of direct disclosure to the Union, with only a protective order, provided scant protection against dissemination and was an abuse of its remedial discretion. Regarding the employee-linked scores, the employees' sensitivity and privacy interests are significant. The Company's offer to disclose scores upon receiving consent from the individual employees was a reasonable accommodation that satisfied its statutory duty to bargain, as the burden on the Union to seek consent was minimal compared to the privacy interests at stake.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
No, the NLRB's order was a proper exercise of its authority to balance conflicting interests and should be upheld. The Court should defer to the Board's expertise in labor relations. The risk of the Union leaking the test materials is overstated, as the Union has institutional incentives to maintain confidentiality, and the Court undervalues the Union's need to access the information directly without the cumbersome and costly barrier of hiring an intermediary psychologist. Furthermore, the Board correctly determined that the Union's need to analyze the employee-linked scores to detect potential bias or grading errors outweighed the marginal intrusion on employee confidentiality, especially since the Company failed to present substantial evidence of likely harassment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes, in part, and no, in part. The Board's decision should be affirmed regarding the test battery and answer sheets, as the Court should defer to the Board's broad remedial discretion in fashioning a remedy for the disclosure of those materials. However, the Board's decision should be reversed regarding the employee-linked test scores, as the individual employees' interest in the confidentiality of their scores should be protected, and disclosure should not be compelled without their consent.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a union's right to information under the NLRA is not absolute and is subject to a balancing test. It tempers the previously broad, discovery-like standard for information requests by requiring the NLRB to weigh a union's need for information against an employer's legitimate confidentiality interests and employees' privacy rights. The ruling confirms that an employer may fulfill its bargaining obligations through conditional disclosure, setting a precedent that protects sensitive business information and personal data. This requires a more nuanced, case-by-case analysis in information-request disputes, rather than a presumption in favor of the union.
