National Labor Relations Board v. River Togs, Inc.
1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5471, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2987, 382 F.2d 198 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's statements regarding the potential economic consequences of unionization are protected under § 8(c) of the NLRA if they are reasonable predictions based on objective facts, rather than threats of reprisal motivated by anti-union bias. An employer's good faith doubt about a union's majority status, supported by objective factors like the unreliability of authorization cards, employee anti-union petitions, or questions about signature validity, can justify a refusal to bargain under § 8(a)(5), even amidst some unlawful anti-union conduct, unless such conduct makes a fair election impossible.
Facts:
- River Togs, Inc., solely owned by Salvatore Avellino, Jr., operates a plant as a contractor sewing dresses.
- During February 1965, Local 107, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (Union), began an organizing campaign in Suffolk County, holding dinner meetings for River Togs employees on March 3, 10, and 15.
- On March 10, supervisor Billie Mastrioni inquired if employee Alice Wright was attending a union meeting, and employee James Tolar attended a union meeting with a camera attempting to take pictures.
- On March 11, Mastrioni announced that Avellino knew who attended the meeting, would close the plant before joining a union, and any employee wanting a union could leave; later that day, Avellino confronted Tolar, asking about pictures, reproaching him, suggesting he not 'buy a house' without a job, and calling him a 'ringleader.'
- On March 11, the Union sent River Togs a letter claiming majority representation and requesting negotiations; on March 12, Avellino telephoned the Union, stating he would close the plant if the Union persisted unless it secured a 'union jobber.'
- On March 15, Avellino gathered employees, stated he knew many attended Union meetings, advised them to ask the Union about securing work, questioned how they could meet union wages given current pay, and explained he could not pay union benefits without 'union jobbers'; he offered to recognize the Union if it secured a union jobber.
- On March 16, two employees asked Lillian Andreasen, the sole office worker, for paper to circulate anti-union petitions and asked her to write out the petition, which she did; supervisors Mastrioni and Martin were in the shop, saw the petition being circulated, and did nothing to interfere.
- Immediately after an unproductive meeting on March 17, a jobber withdrew 1000 uncompleted dresses; River Togs laid off Frances Kozak, Vera Gaines, Angelina Dixon, Carol Kotun, Rose Mayo, and Cecile Adair between March 19 and March 24, as their skirt work ran out, with Avellino stating the layoffs were due to work withdrawal and a planned change to a 'semi-section' operation.
Procedural Posture:
- Local 107, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for an election.
- The NLRB's Trial Examiner found that River Togs' March 15 speech did not violate § 8(a)(1) but upheld the validity of authorization cards signed by three Polish women.
- The National Labor Relations Board (Board) disagreed with the Trial Examiner, finding River Togs' March 15 speech violated § 8(a)(1) by creating an impression of surveillance and constituting a threat of reprisal.
- The Board also overturned the Trial Examiner's finding regarding the March 19-24 layoffs, concluding they constituted a violation of § 8(a)(3).
- The Board sustained the validity of authorization cards for Jadwiga Suchto and found River Togs' refusal to bargain violated § 8(a)(5).
- The National Labor Relations Board sought enforcement of its order against River Togs, Inc. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an employer's statement predicting the negative economic consequences of unionization, when based on objective facts and explained to employees, constitute an unlawful threat of reprisal under § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act? 2. Does an employer's refusal to bargain with a union, despite some unlawful anti-union conduct, violate § 8(a)(5) if the employer genuinely doubts the union's majority status based on objective factors? 3. Does the mere inaction of supervisors, seeing employees circulate an anti-union petition that was drafted with the help of an office worker, constitute an unlawful employer-sponsored petition under § 8(a)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, Circuit Judge
1. Yes and No. The court found that supervisor Mastrioni's inquiry about Alice Wright and Avellino's confrontation with James Tolar constituted unlawful surveillance and threats under § 8(a)(1). However, Avellino’s March 15 speech, predicting economic consequences of unionization (e.g., difficulty meeting union wages, plant closure without union jobbers), did not violate § 8(a)(1). These statements were deemed protected under § 8(c) as reasonable predictions based on objective facts (Union's minimum wage standards, workers' performance, company's economic state, difficulty with union jobbers), rather than threats of reprisal motivated solely by Avellino's anti-union bias. Furthermore, Lillian Andreasen's assistance in drafting an anti-union petition and supervisors' inaction during its circulation did not violate § 8(a)(1) because there was no evidence the company initiated or actively encouraged it, or created an impression of company sponsorship or reprisal. 2. No, River Togs' refusal to bargain did not violate § 8(a)(5) because the company had a good faith doubt as to the Union's majority status. The court emphasized the General Counsel's burden of proof and found it unmet. Factors supporting Avellino's good faith doubt included the general unreliability of authorization cards, his belief that cards were procured by inducements (like dinner), the existence of an anti-union petition, and significant doubts about the validity of cards signed by Polish-speaking employees who might not have understood their contents. The court noted that even some unlawful anti-union conduct does not automatically negate a good faith doubt, especially if it does not render a fair election impossible, citing NLRB v. James Thompson & Co. for the principle that such conduct sheds little light on the employer's perception of union strength. 3. No, the layoffs of five employees between March 19-24 were not discriminatory violations of § 8(a)(3). The court found that the General Counsel did not meet its burden to prove discriminatory motive. The layoffs were adequately explained by legitimate economic reasons, specifically the withdrawal of 1000 dresses and a planned change to a 'semi-section' operation requiring retraining. The court also noted the lack of specific evidence that River Togs knew which laid-off employees had signed union cards, and gave significant weight to the Trial Examiner's original findings, which had been overturned by the Board, in line with Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the boundaries of employer speech under the NLRA, distinguishing between protected economic predictions and unlawful threats. It reinforces the principle that employers may communicate reasonably foreseen negative economic impacts of unionization if based on objective facts and not coercive. The decision also highlights the high burden on the General Counsel to prove discriminatory motive in layoffs and lack of good-faith doubt in refusal-to-bargain cases, especially when the Board's findings overturn those of a Trial Examiner. Crucially, it underscores the judiciary's skepticism toward authorization cards as definitive proof of union majority, particularly when collection methods or language barriers introduce ambiguity, thereby strengthening an employer's ability to demand an election if a genuine doubt exists.
