National Labor Relations Board v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.
133 L. Ed. 2d 371, 516 U.S. 85, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 8311 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A worker may be a company's 'employee' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act even if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to help organize the company.
Facts:
- Town & Country Electric, Inc. was a nonunion electrical contractor.
- The company advertised job openings for several licensed electricians for a construction project in Minnesota.
- Eleven members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Union) applied for the positions.
- The union applicants, including two professional union staff, intended to organize the company if they were hired, and the Union would pay them for their organizing activities.
- Town & Country refused to interview ten of the eleven union applicants.
- The one union applicant who was interviewed and hired was dismissed from the job after only a few days.
Procedural Posture:
- Members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the union members.
- The full NLRB affirmed the judge's ruling, concluding the union applicants were 'employees' under the NLRA.
- Town & Country Electric, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed the NLRB's order, holding that paid union organizers do not qualify as 'employees' under the Act.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
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 term 'employee' in the National Labor Relations Act include a job applicant who is also paid by a union to organize the company if hired?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. A worker paid by a union to organize a company is an 'employee' under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and is protected from anti-union discrimination. The NLRA's definition of 'employee' is exceptionally broad, stating it 'shall include any employee' and listing specific exceptions that do not include paid union organizers. This broad interpretation is consistent with the Act's purpose of protecting workers' rights to self-organization. Furthermore, common law agency principles do not preclude this finding, as a person can serve two masters if the service to one does not involve an abandonment of service to the other. Performing assigned tasks for the company is not an abandonment of service, even if the worker is also being paid by a union for organizing efforts, which may occur during non-work hours. The company's practical concerns about disloyalty or sabotage can be addressed through other legal remedies, such as dismissing employees for cause, rather than by creating a judicial exception to the NLRA's broad definition.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision affirmed the legitimacy of the union organizing tactic known as 'salting,' where union members seek employment at nonunion companies with the intent of organizing the workforce. The ruling solidifies the National Labor Relations Board's broad interpretation of the term 'employee,' preventing employers from categorically refusing to hire or from firing individuals simply because they are being paid by a union to organize. This precedent requires employers to treat 'salts' as they would any other employee, protecting their rights under the NLRA and forcing employers to rely on lawful reasons, such as poor performance or misconduct, for any adverse employment actions.
Unlock the full brief for National Labor Relations Board v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.