Town & Country Electric, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
106 F.3d 816 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer violates sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by taking adverse employment actions, such as refusing to interview or discharging employees, based on their union affiliation or activities. An employer's proffered legitimate business reasons for such actions will not defeat an unfair labor practice charge if the NLRB finds, based on substantial evidence, that those reasons are a pretext for anti-union discrimination.
Facts:
- In September 1989, Town & Country Electric, Inc., a nonunion contractor, secured a job in Minnesota that required it to hire state-licensed electricians.
- Town & Country retained Ameristaff, a personnel service, to advertise for and recruit electricians, specifying that applicants had to be willing to work a nonunion job.
- On the day of the interviews, approximately a dozen members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292, arrived to apply, encouraged by their union to organize the jobsite if hired.
- After Town & Country's manager, Ron Sager, was informed by an Ameristaff representative that the waiting applicants were 'union,' Sager abruptly terminated the interviews, refusing to see ten of the union-affiliated applicants.
- Town & Country did hire one of the union members, Malcolm Hansen.
- Hansen openly announced he was a union member and was there to organize the other workers.
- Town & Country managers repeatedly told Hansen to stop talking about the union on the jobsite and at the crew's shared housing.
- A few days after he started work, Town & Country instructed Ameristaff to discharge Hansen, later citing poor performance and productivity as the reason.
Procedural Posture:
- The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 292, filed an unfair labor practice charge against Town & Country Electric, Inc. with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The case was heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that Town & Country had violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- The NLRB affirmed the ALJ's findings and issued a remedial order against Town & Country.
- Town & Country petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review of the NLRB's order.
- The Eighth Circuit initially denied enforcement of the order, holding that paid union organizers were not 'employees' protected by the NLRA.
- The NLRB successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's judgment, holding that paid union organizers are 'employees' under the NLRA, and remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit for further proceedings.
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 violate the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to interview job applicants after learning of their union affiliation and by discharging a recently hired employee for his union organizing activities, when the employer claims its actions were based on legitimate business reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Wollman, Circuit Judge
Yes. An employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to interview job applicants due to their union affiliation and by discharging an employee for engaging in protected union activities, where substantial evidence supports the National Labor Relations Board's finding that the employer's proffered business justifications are pretextual. The court defers to the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) credibility determinations, which found the employer's reasons for its actions were not believable. The decision to terminate interviews was made immediately after learning the applicants were union members, and the employer desperately needed electricians for a job starting in a few days. Similarly, the reasons given for discharging Hansen—poor work and low productivity—were found to be 'shifting, replete with contradiction,' and post-hoc justifications for a decision motivated by Hansen's protected organizing activities. The employer failed to carry its burden of proving it would have taken the same actions absent the employees' union activities.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the protections for union 'salting' campaigns, where union members seek employment at nonunion companies to organize from within. By enforcing the NLRB's order and giving substantial deference to its factual findings of pretext, the court reinforces that employers cannot easily evade liability for anti-union discrimination by fabricating business justifications. The ruling underscores the high evidentiary burden on employers to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination, especially when an ALJ makes adverse credibility findings against management. This strengthens the NLRB's position as the primary fact-finder in labor disputes and narrows the scope of judicial review for employers seeking to overturn Board decisions.
