NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp.
10 L. Ed. 2d 308, 83 S. Ct. 1139 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer commits an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act by granting super-seniority to strike replacements and to strikers who return to work, as such conduct is inherently discriminatory and destructive of employees' right to strike.
Facts:
- Erie Resistor Corporation and the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 613, failed to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, leading to a strike by all 478 employees in the bargaining unit upon the contract's expiration on March 31, 1959.
- To continue operations, Erie Resistor began hiring permanent replacement workers in early May 1959.
- On May 28, 1959, the company announced its intention to award 20 years of additional seniority credit for future layoff purposes to all new replacements and to any striking employees who returned to work.
- The striking union members unanimously voted to continue the strike in protest of the proposed super-seniority plan.
- Following the plan's official implementation on June 10, a significant number of strikers returned to work and new replacements were hired, leading the union to capitulate and sign a new contract on July 17.
- After the strike ended, during a period of workforce reduction, many reinstated strikers were laid off because their regular seniority was insufficient to protect their jobs against those who had received super-seniority.
Procedural Posture:
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Erie Resistor Corporation with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An NLRB Trial Examiner found the super-seniority policy was for legitimate economic reasons and recommended dismissal of the complaint.
- The full NLRB reversed the Trial Examiner, holding that the super-seniority plan was an unfair labor practice without requiring specific evidence of discriminatory intent.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to enforce its order.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) denied the Board's petition for enforcement and remanded the case, holding that a preferential seniority policy could be lawful if motivated solely by business necessity.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
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) of the National Labor Relations Act by granting 20 years of super-seniority to employees who replace strikers or abandon a strike and return to work?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. An employer's grant of super-seniority to strike replacements and returning strikers is an unfair labor practice because such conduct is inherently discriminatory and destructive to fundamental employee rights, regardless of the employer's motive or asserted business justification. While an employer has the right to hire permanent replacements during a strike under NLRB v. Mackay Radio, offering super-seniority is a far greater encroachment on the right to strike. This practice creates a permanent cleavage in the workforce, discriminates against those who exercise their protected right to strike, and provides a powerful incentive for employees to abandon collective action. The Court found that the National Labor Relations Board correctly balanced the conflicting interests and concluded that the harm to employee rights outweighed the employer's interest in using this specific tool to maintain operations. Therefore, specific evidence of anti-union motivation is not required to find such conduct unlawful.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. Justice Harlan agreed with the Court's conclusion that the 20-year super-seniority plan in this specific case was unlawful without needing to inquire into the employer's motives. However, he wrote separately to express uncertainty about whether the majority was creating a per se rule that outlaws all super-seniority plans. He suggested that a plan with a much shorter duration of extra seniority might not necessarily be unlawful in all circumstances, and he was unsure if the Court intended to sustain the Board's action only in this case or to prohibit all such plans regardless of the specific facts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits on an employer's economic weapons during a strike. It establishes that certain employer actions can be deemed 'inherently destructive' of employee rights, making them unlawful without proof of anti-union motive. By distinguishing the permissible hiring of permanent replacements (under Mackay) from the impermissible grant of super-seniority, the Court reinforced the protected status of the right to strike. This case solidifies the NLRB's role in balancing the competing interests of employers and employees, giving deference to the Board's expertise in determining when a business justification is outweighed by the harm to concerted activities.
Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp.