National Labor Relations Board v. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc.
1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3487, 51 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2608, 310 F.2d 58 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer commits an unfair labor practice by discharging or otherwise retaliating against a supervisor for giving testimony in a National Labor Relations Board proceeding, as such conduct restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their organizational rights.
Facts:
- In August 1959, a union began efforts to organize employees at Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc.
- Prior to the union election, Dal-Tex Vice-President Lester I. Pearle directed a supervisor, Willie B. Green, to tell specific employees they would lose their jobs if the company lost the election.
- Green conveyed these threats to the employees as instructed.
- The union lost the representation election held on October 30, 1959.
- On April 25-26, 1960, Green provided testimony adverse to Dal-Tex in a government labor proceeding regarding the pre-election threats.
- A few hours after Green finished testifying, Dal-Tex President Greenberg discharged him.
- The day after the proceeding, Dal-Tex took adverse employment actions against four other employees who were involved, including accelerating a resignation, changing job status from salaried to hourly, transferring an employee to a less desirable role, and issuing a disciplinary warning.
Procedural Posture:
- After losing a representation election, a union filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), initiating Case No. 16-RC-2571.
- The union also filed separate unfair labor practice charges against Dal-Tex for making threats and promises, initiating Case No. 16-CA-1325.
- The NLRB consolidated the two cases for a hearing.
- Following the hearing, new charges were filed alleging Dal-Tex unlawfully retaliated against employees and a supervisor for their testimony, initiating Case No. 16-CA-1358.
- In the first consolidated case, the Board found Dal-Tex interfered with the election, ordered the election set aside, and issued a cease and desist order.
- In the second case, the Board found Dal-Tex committed an unfair labor practice by retaliating against the supervisor and employees, ordering reinstatement and other remedies.
- The National Labor Relations Board petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking enforcement of both of its orders.
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's discharge of or retaliation against a supervisor for testifying in a National Labor Relations Board proceeding constitute an unfair labor practice by coercing or restraining employees in the exercise of their organizational rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. An employer's discharge of a supervisor for testifying in a labor proceeding is an unfair labor practice if it coerces employees in the exercise of their rights. Although supervisors are not considered 'employees' under the National Labor Relations Act and generally lack its protections, an exception exists to safeguard the integrity of Board proceedings and protect employees' rights. The court reasoned that retaliating against a supervisor for testifying sends a clear message to non-supervisory employees that they too could face reprisal for participating in Board proceedings. This action would foreseeably restrain or coerce employees from exercising their rights to organize and seek legal redress. Citing precedent from cases like N.L.R.B. v. Better Monkey Grip Corporation, the court affirmed that such retaliation is unlawful due to its chilling effect on employees. The court also deferred to the Board's factual findings, including the determination that seemingly minor changes in job duties were not de minimis, as they were supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a critical exception to the rule that supervisors are excluded from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. It clarifies that the protection afforded to a testifying supervisor is not for the supervisor's own benefit, but to prevent the coercion of non-supervisory employees. The case establishes that an employer's motive is less important than the foreseeable effect of its actions on employees' willingness to participate in NLRB proceedings. This precedent strengthens the NLRB's ability to conduct fair investigations and hearings by protecting all participants, including management personnel, from retaliation for giving testimony.
