National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co. et al.

Supreme Court of United States
412 U.S. 67 (1973)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act does not grant the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the authority to inquire into the reasonableness of a disciplinary fine levied by a union against one of its members, so long as the fine does not affect the member's employment status. Challenges to the reasonableness of such fines are matters for state courts to resolve under state contract or association law.

Facts:

Booster Lodge No. 405 (the Union) and the Boeing Co. (the Company) were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement.
When the agreement expired, the Union initiated a lawful economic strike against the Company.
During the 18-day strike, approximately 143 union members crossed the picket lines and returned to work for the Company.
After the strike ended and a new agreement was signed, the Union charged these members with violating the union's constitution.
Following internal union hearings, the members who crossed the picket line were found guilty, fined $450 each, and barred from holding Union office for five years.
The Union subsequently filed suits in state court to enforce the collection of the fines from some of the members.

Procedural Posture:

The Boeing Co. filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
An NLRB Trial Examiner found that the fines were impermissibly excessive.
The full NLRB reversed the Trial Examiner, holding that the Board lacked statutory authority to regulate the size of union fines.
The Boeing Co. sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRB's decision, holding that an unreasonably large fine is coercive under the Act, and remanded the case for a determination of the fines' reasonableness.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

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 § 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act require the National Labor Relations Board to evaluate the reasonableness of a disciplinary fine imposed by a union on its members as part of determining whether the fine constitutes an unfair labor practice?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Rehnquist

No. Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act does not require the NLRB to evaluate the reasonableness of a disciplinary fine. The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress did not intend for the NLRB to regulate the purely internal affairs of unions, such as the imposition of disciplinary fines that do not affect the employer-employee relationship. While prior cases like NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers and Scofield v. NLRB used the word 'reasonable' when discussing fines, this was merely dicta. The core principle of those cases was that the Act distinguishes between internal union enforcement (which the Board cannot regulate) and external enforcement that impacts employment status (which the Board can). The proper forum for determining a fine's reasonableness is state court, applying principles of contract law or the law of voluntary associations.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger

Yes. The NLRB should have the authority to determine the reasonableness of union fines. It is contrary to the history of federal labor statutes to thrust this sensitive issue upon state courts, especially when unions have historically argued for the NLRB's exclusive expertise and against state court intervention. The Board possesses the intimate knowledge of labor relations necessary to devise uniform national standards for what constitutes a reasonable fine, preventing the wide disparity of outcomes that will result from leaving this determination to various state courts.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

Yes. The NLRB has jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of union fines because an unreasonable fine is inherently a form of restraint or coercion prohibited by § 8(b)(1)(A). The Court's own precedent in Scofield explicitly referenced 'reasonable fines.' A fine that exceeds the amount a worker earned during the strike is punitive and goes beyond legitimate internal union regulation, having the same effect as an illegal post-strike suspension. The NLRB is the expert body created to protect workers' rights and is a more accessible forum for an individual employee than state court litigation against a powerful union.

Analysis:

This decision significantly limits the NLRB's oversight of internal union discipline, reinforcing a jurisdictional line between union actions that affect employment status and those that are purely internal. By delegating the question of a fine's reasonableness to state courts, the ruling divests the federal labor scheme of the power to create a uniform standard, potentially leading to inconsistent results across different states. The decision places the onus on individual members to challenge excessive fines through costly and complex state court litigation rather than through the more accessible administrative process of the NLRB. This reinforces the view of the union-member relationship as being primarily contractual in nature, governed by state law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co. et al. (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature