Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
419 U.S. 301, 42 L. Ed. 2d 465, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 160 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unless an employer has engaged in independent unfair labor practices that would impair the electoral process, the employer does not commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(5) of the NLRA by refusing to accept authorization cards as evidence of a union's majority status and insisting on a Board-conducted secret ballot election.
Facts:
- In the first case, a union obtained authorization cards from a majority of Linden Lumber Division's employees and demanded recognition as their collective bargaining representative.
- Linden refused to recognize the union, stating it doubted the union's majority status and alleged that supervisors had improperly assisted the union's organizational campaign.
- The union at Linden then went on strike to demand recognition.
- In the second case, a union obtained signed authorization cards from a majority of employees in what it deemed an appropriate bargaining unit at Wilder Manufacturing Co.
- The union requested recognition from Wilder, but the company did not respond and later denied the request.
- The union at Wilder began picketing for recognition after its request was ignored.
- In neither case did the employer engage in any independent, serious unfair labor practices that would have made a fair election impossible.
Procedural Posture:
- In two separate cases, unions filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Linden Lumber and Wilder Manufacturing, respectively, for refusing to bargain.
- The NLRB (an administrative agency) dismissed the complaints, ruling that an employer's refusal to accept authorization cards as proof of majority, without more, is not an unfair labor practice.
- The unions sought review of the NLRB's decisions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate federal appellate court) reversed the NLRB, holding that an employer with doubts about a union's card majority has a duty to resolve those doubts by petitioning for an election.
- Linden Lumber and the NLRB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 an employer commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to accept authorization cards as proof of a union's majority status, when the employer has not engaged in other unfair labor practices that would impede a fair election?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. An employer does not commit an unfair labor practice solely by refusing to accept evidence of a union's majority status other than the results of a Board election, provided the employer has not engaged in unfair labor practices that impair the electoral process. The Court reasoned that secret ballot elections are the preferred and superior method for determining employee representation, as authorization cards can be unreliable. Forcing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to inquire into an employer's subjective 'good faith' for doubting a card majority would be a return to a problematic and abandoned standard. While the NLRA allows an employer to petition for an election via § 9(c)(1)(B), it does not impose a duty on the employer to do so. Therefore, the burden rests on the union to invoke the NLRB's election procedures when an employer refuses to grant recognition based on cards.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. An employer should be found to have committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with a union that has presented convincing, objective evidence of majority support, such as authorization cards. The language of the NLRA requires employers to bargain with representatives 'designated or selected' by a majority, not only those certified through an election. Legislative history shows Congress specifically rejected a proposal to make elections the exclusive path to recognition. When faced with convincing evidence, an employer has the option to recognize the union or to protect itself by petitioning for an election under § 9(c)(1)(B). An employer's refusal to do either should constitute a refusal to bargain, and the Board can establish objective criteria for 'convincing evidence' without delving into the employer's subjective good faith.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the primacy of the secret ballot election as the standard and preferred method for determining union representation. It significantly limits the scope of the bargaining order remedy established in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., restricting it to cases where an employer's independent unfair labor practices have corrupted the election process. By placing the burden on the union to file for an election when an employer refuses to accept authorization cards, the ruling gives employers a powerful, lawful means to test a union's claimed majority and delay the onset of a bargaining obligation. This shifts the strategic calculus in union organizing campaigns, making the collection of authorization cards a preliminary step toward an election rather than a potential final step toward recognition.
