Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
884 F.2d 34 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency must follow its own legal precedents or provide a reasoned explanation for departing from them. An agency decision that departs from established precedent without explanation is arbitrary and will not be enforced by a reviewing court.
Facts:
- A union representation election campaign was underway at a Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. ('Shaw') distribution facility in Wells, Maine.
- Five days before the election, Shaw's vice president for distribution, Charles Wyatt, held meetings with three different groups of employees.
- In response to questions, Wyatt stated that if a union were elected, collective bargaining would begin with the legal minimums of minimum wage and workmen's compensation.
- Wyatt explained that collective bargaining is a 'give and take process' and that they would 'build from that point.'
- Wyatt also told employees that the first contract is typically the 'toughest or hardest to negotiate' and could take up to a year.
- At the time, some full-time employees earned up to $11.70 per hour, while the federal minimum wage was $3.55 per hour.
Procedural Posture:
- A representation election was held at Shaw's facility in which employees voted against union representation.
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Shaw's with the National Labor Relations Board (the 'Board'), an administrative agency.
- The Board found that Shaw's violated the National Labor Relations Act by making statements that constituted a 'threat of reprisal'.
- As a remedy, the Board ordered that a new election be held.
- The Board petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court, to enforce its order against Shaw's.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order finding an employer's 'bargaining from scratch' statement to be an unlawful threat enforceable when the decision is inconsistent with the NLRB's own well-established precedent and the NLRB provides no explanation for the departure?
Opinions:
Majority - Breyer, Circuit Judge
No, the NLRB's order is not enforceable because an administrative agency that departs from its own well-established precedent without explanation acts arbitrarily. The court found that the NLRB's decision in this case was inconsistent with a clear line of prior cases where similar or even more aggressive 'bargaining from scratch' statements were found to be lawful employer speech. The court meticulously reviewed two categories of NLRB precedent: cases where such statements were found lawful and cases where they were found to be unlawful threats. It concluded that Wyatt's statements fell 'tucked well within the boundary of the lawful' based on the Board's own prior rulings. While the Board has the authority to change its rules, it cannot do so 'sub silentio' (silently) for a single case; it must explicitly acknowledge and justify any deviation from precedent to ensure consistency and guide public conduct. Because the Board failed to distinguish its prior cases or explain its departure, its order was deemed unenforceable and the case was remanded.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of administrative law known as reasoned decision-making, which mandates that an agency's actions must be consistent and non-arbitrary. By refusing to enforce the NLRB's order, the court underscored that agencies are bound by their own precedent, much like courts are. This serves as a critical check on agency power, preventing them from applying rules inconsistently or targeting specific parties without justification. For future cases, this holding requires regulated parties and their counsel to closely analyze an agency's body of precedent, and it empowers them to challenge agency actions that deviate from that precedent without a clear, articulated reason for the change.
Unlock the full brief for Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board