No. The workers can be fired for this. Labor law is built on the idea of 'one team, one voice.' When workers vote for a union, that union becomes the one and only representative for everyone. Allowing small groups to make their own demands would create chaos and weaken the power of the union for all workers. While fighting discrimination is incredibly important, it must be done through the proper channels, like the union's complaint process or by filing a civil rights lawsuit. You can't break the rules of union representation to do it.

Yes. Their protest should have been protected. The majority's decision traps minority workers, making them 'prisoners of their union.' If the union isn't doing enough to fight racism, workers should have the right to protest directly. The right to be free from discrimination is so fundamental that it shouldn't be blocked by union procedures. Forcing workers to wait for a slow or weak union to act is unfair and defeats the purpose of civil rights laws.

No, the workers' actions aren't protected by labor laws. When there's a union, it represents all the workers together to bargain with the company. Letting small groups of workers negotiate on their own would weaken the union's power. Even though fighting discrimination is really important, minority workers still can't ignore the union process and try to deal with the company directly. They have to work through the union, which is supposed to represent everyone's interests fairly. The union can include rules against discrimination in the agreement with the company.

The law shouldn't make workers prisoners of their union when it comes to fighting racial discrimination. Workers should go to the union first, but if the union isn't doing enough, workers should be allowed to protest on their own. The workers here faced serious discrimination, and a weak response from the union can be just as bad as the company actively discriminating. Workers shouldn't have to just accept that. Their picketing was a normal way for workers to protest unfair treatment. With the civil rights law Title VII, ending discrimination at work is part of our national labor policy. Workers have a right to a workplace without discrimination, whether the union fights for it or not.

The precise issue in Emporium Capwell was "whether, in light of the national policy against racial discrimination in employment, the National Labor Relations Act protects concerted activity by a group of minority employees to bargain with their employer over issues of employment discrimination."

A union "has a legitimate interest in presenting a united front... and in not seeing its strength dissipated and its stature denigrated by subgroups within the unit separately pursuing what they see as separate interests

The rights established through this system of majority rule are thus "protected not for their own sake but as an instrument of the national labor policy of minimizing industrial strife `by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.'29 USC § 151. "

—the Court held that the national labor policy of nondiscrimination did not protect the decision of a group of minority employees to bypass the grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement in favor of attempting to bargain directly with the employer in derogation of the exclusivity principles of section 9 (a) of the NLRA.

—holding that no rights granted to individuals under Title VII are capable of abrogating the provisions of the NLRA

By providing an increased degree of statutory coverage to employees participating in that process, the labor laws encourage and preserve the "practice and procedure of collective bargaining."

—a group of employees, dissatisfied with the union's representation, expressed "their desire to deal directly with `the top management'of the Company over minority employment conditions, announced their intention to picket and institute a boycott of the store "to enforce this demand, and" were discharged for attempting to bargain with the Company.... "

"The elimination of discrimination and its vestiges is an appropriate subject of bargaining, and an employer may have no objection to incorporating into a collective agreement the substance of his obligation not to discriminate in personnel decisions...."

In establishing a regime of majority rule, Congress sought to secure to all members of the [bargaining] unit the benefits of their collective strength and bargaining power, in full awareness that the superior strength of some individuals or groups might be subordinated to the interest of the majority

Third, we have held, by the very nature of the exclusive bargaining representative's status as representative of all unit employees, Congress implicitly imposed upon it a duty fairly and in good faith to represent the interests of minorities within the unit.

No. Concerted activity by minority employees that bypasses the exclusive bargaining representative and seeks to bargain separately with the employer is not protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. The central principle of the NLRA is that of exclusive representation, established in § 9(a), where a single, majority-elected union speaks for all employees in the bargaining unit. Allowing subgroups to bargain separately, even over critical issues like racial discrimination, would undermine the union's authority, fragment the workforce, create industrial strife, and conflict with the orderly process of collective bargaining. While the national policy against discrimination is of the highest priority, it cannot be pursued through methods that are destructive of the NLRA's framework. The employees' remedies lie in the union's duty of fair representation and through the procedures established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not in unauthorized, separate bargaining.

Yes. The employees' protest against racial discrimination was a protected 'concerted activity' under § 7 of the NLRA. The Court's decision makes minority employees 'prisoners of the Union' by forcing them to rely on a representative whose efforts may be inadequate or slow. The right to be free from employment discrimination is a fundamental statutory right under Title VII and should not be subordinated to the majoritarian processes of the NLRA. When a union's response to discrimination is insufficient, employees must be permitted to engage in self-help, such as picketing, to oppose unlawful employer practices. The law should not require continued submission to a union regime that is ineffective in combating racial inequality.

No. The concerted activity by the employees is not protected by the National Labor Relations Act because it undermines the statutory system of bargaining through an exclusive, elected representative. The Court emphasized the importance of the union's role in presenting a united front and the potential harm of allowing subgroups to pursue separate interests, which could dissipate the union's strength and denigrate its stature. The Court also noted that the national labor policy of nondiscrimination does not protect the decision of a group of minority employees to bypass the grievance procedures in favor of attempting to bargain directly with the employer. The Court held that the rights established through the system of majority rule are protected as an instrument of the national labor policy of minimizing industrial strife by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. The Court further held that no rights granted under Title VII are capable of abrogating the provisions of the NLRA, and that the elimination of discrimination is an appropriate subject of bargaining that can be incorporated into a collective agreement.

The law should not make individual employees prisoners of their union when it comes to combating racial discrimination. While employees may reasonably be required to approach the union first before resorting to economic protest, they should not be under continued inhibition when the union response is inadequate. The employees in this case suffered rank discrimination and the union's inertia can be as devastating to racial equality as aggressive subversion. Continued submission by employees to such a regime should not be demanded. The employees' picketing was a traditional form of labor protest directed at matters which are unquestionably a proper subject of employee concern. With the enactment of Title VII, the eradication of employment discrimination is part of federal labor policy. The employees' right to nondiscriminatory treatment is based on law, not just union demands. The Court of Appeals' standard protecting the employees unless the Board finds the union had been prosecuting their complaints to the fullest extent possible by the most expedient means should not be disturbed.

Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization et al.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot