Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
330 U.S. 485, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2854, 67 S. Ct. 789 (1947)
Rule of Law:
Foremen, as supervisory employees, are "employees" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are entitled to the rights of self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities as assured to employees generally by the Act.
Facts:
- Packard Motor Car Company employed approximately 32,000 rank-and-file workmen, who had been represented by the United Automobile Workers of America (CIO) since 1937.
- Packard also employed about 1,100 employees of foreman rank, including general foremen, foremen, assistant foremen, and special assignment men, who supervised the production workers.
- Foremen carried responsibility for maintaining production quantity and quality, initiated recommendations for promotion, demotion, and discipline, and received higher pay, paid absences, holidays, longer paid vacations, and severance pay compared to the rank-and-file workmen.
- These foremen determined to organize as a unit of the Foremen’s Association of America, an unaffiliated organization representing supervisory employees exclusively.
- Packard Motor Car Company asserted that foremen were not "employees" entitled to the advantages of the Labor Act and refused to bargain with the Foremen's Association.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided that all general foremen, foremen, assistant foremen, and special assignment men employed by Packard Motor Car Company constituted an appropriate unit for collective bargaining under Section 9(b) of the NLRA.
- The NLRB certified the Foremen's Association of America as the bargaining representative for this unit.
- Following Packard Motor Car Company's refusal to bargain, the NLRB held a hearing on an unfair labor practice charge.
- The NLRB issued a cease-and-desist order against Packard Motor Car Company for refusing to bargain.
- Packard Motor Car Company resisted the order and challenged its validity in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals decreed enforcement of the NLRB's order.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the Circuit Court's judgment.
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 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) classify foremen as "employees" entitled to the rights of self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities as assured to employees generally by the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, foremen are employees under the National Labor Relations Act and are entitled to the rights of self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities. Section 2(3) of the Act broadly defines "employee" to include "any employee," and foremen clearly fit this common understanding. The Court rejected Packard's argument that foremen are "employers" under Section 2(2) because they "act in the interest of an employer." This section, an adaptation of respondeat superior, is intended to hold employers responsible for the acts of those performed in their interests, not to deny organizational privileges to such individuals as employees. While foremen represent the employer in certain capacities, they still possess their own distinct interests as employees concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. Congress is solely responsible for creating exceptions or qualifications to the plain terms of the Act. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has broad discretion under Section 9(b) to determine appropriate bargaining units, and its decisions are rarely disturbed if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that foremen constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, despite varying levels of responsibility, due to their common relationship to the enterprise. Neither legislative history nor inconsistent administrative interpretations can override the plain meaning of the statute. Policy arguments regarding divided loyalties are matters for Congress, not the courts, to address.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No, foremen are not "employees" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act in a way that entitles them to statutory collective bargaining rights. While the definition of "employee" is broad, it must be considered in the context of the entire Act, which draws a distinction between "employee" and "employer." Section 2(2), which defines "employer" to include "any person acting in the interest of an employer," places foremen on the "employer" side of this divide, as they act for management in formulating and executing labor policies. Historically, foremen were instrumental in management's execution of labor policies and often committed unfair labor practices. The Act's primary aim was to protect "workingmen" and "laborers" from industrial strife, not to address the collective bargaining needs of supervisory personnel, as evidenced by the language used (e.g., "wage earners") and the absence of any mention of supervisors in legislative history. The specific exemption for "agricultural laborer" without a corresponding exemption for "agricultural foremen" further suggests Congress's focus on non-supervisory workers. The dual status of foremen (both employer agents and employees) creates serious complications that Congress did not foresee or address, suggesting a lack of intent to include them. Moreover, other related legislation, such as the Railway Labor Act, explicitly included "subordinate officials" when Congress intended to cover supervisory personnel, a clarity absent from the NLRA. Including foremen represents a fundamental change in industrial philosophy that should be left for Congress to explicitly legislate, rather than being inferred by the Court.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly expanded the scope of employee rights under the NLRA by extending collective bargaining protections to supervisory personnel. It reinforced the principle of statutory interpretation that courts should adhere to the plain meaning of legislation unless ambiguity necessitates resort to legislative history or policy considerations. The ruling also underscored the broad discretion vested in the NLRB to determine appropriate bargaining units, making it challenging for judicial review to overturn such determinations. While later legislation (the Taft-Hartley Act) would revise the status of supervisors, this case for a time fostered a more inclusive understanding of unionization in the industrial landscape, impacting the balance of power between labor and management.
