National Labor Relations Board v. Local 176, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit
276 F.2d 583 (1960)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An exclusive union hiring hall agreement that does not explicitly include safeguards—such as non-discriminatory selection criteria, the employer's right to reject applicants, and posted notices of the hiring procedures—is a per se violation of the Labor Management Relations Act because it unduly encourages union membership.

Facts:

Dimeo Construction Company was engaged in a high-school construction project in Newport, Rhode Island.
Dimeo had an unwritten, tacit agreement with Local 176 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners.
The agreement required that all prospective employees first obtain job clearance from the union before being hired by Dimeo.
This hiring arrangement did not include posted notices or explicit provisions guaranteeing non-discriminatory selection or an employer's right to reject union referrals.
A worker named Johnson sought a job on the project.
Fournier, the union's business agent, refused to provide Johnson with the required job clearance, attempting to cause Dimeo not to hire him.

Procedural Posture:

Dimeo Construction Company filed an unfair labor practice charge against Local 176 with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
An NLRB trial examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that the union had violated the Act.
The NLRB adopted the examiner's findings and issued an order against Local 176, which included a requirement that the union refund dues to its members (the 'Brown-Olds' remedy).
The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to enforce its order.

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 oral agreement between a company and a union, which requires all potential employees to obtain job clearance from the union's hiring hall, violate the Labor Management Relations Act when the agreement lacks specific safeguards to ensure non-discriminatory operation?

Opinions:

Majority - Aldrich, J.

Yes. An exclusive hiring hall agreement that lacks specific safeguards to prevent discrimination is unlawful because it inherently and unduly encourages union membership. The court upholds the NLRB's 'Mountain Pacific' doctrine, reasoning that the legality of such an agreement does not depend on proof of actual discrimination, but on the coercive effect the arrangement has on job applicants. When a worker must be 'cleared' by a union, they will reasonably fear that their chances of employment are better if they join the union. This fear itself constitutes 'undue encouragement' of union membership, which is an unfair labor practice under the Act. The Board can therefore require prophylactic safeguards, such as posted notices and non-discriminatory selection criteria, to dispel this fear and ensure the hiring hall operates lawfully. Because the agreement between Dimeo and Local 176 lacked these safeguards, it was illegal, and the union's subsequent refusal to clear Johnson was also an unfair labor practice.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the NLRB's 'Mountain Pacific' doctrine, which treats exclusive hiring hall agreements as presumptively unlawful unless specific safeguards are in place. It shifts the legal focus from proving actual, case-by-case discrimination to examining the structural incentives and inherent pressures of the hiring arrangement itself. The court's reasoning—that the reasonable fear of discrimination is enough to constitute 'undue encouragement' of union membership—establishes a powerful prophylactic rule. This approach simplifies enforcement for the NLRB but places an affirmative burden on unions and employers to explicitly structure their hiring agreements to include the required safeguards.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Labor Relations Board v. Local 176, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (1960)

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