Jeannette Corp. v. N.L.R.B.

Decision Date22 March 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75-1555,75-1555
Citation532 F.2d 916
Parties91 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2968, 78 Lab.Cas. P 11,353 JEANNETTE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Jeffrey L. Klein, Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioner.

John D. Burgoyne, Jane P. Schlaifer, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and GIBBONS and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner, Jeannette Corporation (the Company) discharged an employee, Cheryl McNeely, for discussing wages with other employees in violation of a company rule prohibiting employees from discussing wage rates among themselves, and for allegedly misrepresenting that she had received a salary increase. The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) found that McNeely's actions constituted concerted activities within the protection of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157 (1970), and that the Company's rule inhibits organizational activities among its employees. Accordingly, the Board held that both the discharge and the rule violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1970). The Company has petitioned to review these findings and set aside the Board's order that McNeely be reinstated and that the Company cease and desist from enforcement of its rule. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement. 1 We hold that the rule was invalid and the discharge violated the Act.

The Company, a manufacturer of glass, ceramic, and plastic products, employs at various locations in its plant clerical workers who are salaried and not represented by any labor organization. Its rule prohibiting discussion of wages has been in effect for a number of years, but was never reduced to writing. Despite the rule, it appears that salaries prevailing at the plant were frequently a topic of discussion among the employees.

McNeely was hired on July 15, 1974, at a salary of $435 per month to serve primarily as secretary to Vice-President Mallory. At that time, she was informed that the $435 "was only a starting salary" which would be increased as soon as she demonstrated her ability to handle the job. Within less than two months after she began work, McNeely became unhappy with what she regarded as her low wages. Between the latter part of August and her termination on September 6, she had several conversations with Debra Groves and Paula Caranese, also secretaries, concerning the low clerical salaries paid by the Company. Almost every day during that period, McNeely spoke with Groves, usually in the ladies' room before work and sometimes at Groves' desk. Both of them used these occasions to express their dissatisfaction with the prevailing clerical salaries, and in particular, their own salaries. McNeely encouraged Groves to seek a raise. By August 30, both employees had decided to speak to their respective bosses and "do something about" getting raises.

On September 6, McNeely spoke to Vice-President Mallory and requested a raise. Mallory replied that he would consider the matter. McNeely thereafter informed Groves of her action and Groves responded that she had also requested a raise. McNeely also told Caranese about the request. Caranese, however, became upset by this news and voiced some discontent to her boss, pointing out that she had been with the company for a longer time than McNeely but was making a smaller salary. Her superior reported this conversation to Mallory, who, after discussion with the personnel director, decided to terminate McNeely. She was told that she had broken the Company's policy prohibiting wage discussions among employees. An additional reason given McNeely for her discharge was that she had misrepresented to Caranese that she (McNeely) had in fact received a $100 salary increase, and misrepresented to Mallory that the personnel director had promised her such an increase. In all other respects, the Company found that McNeely's work was "very satisfactory" and that she presented no problems.

The Board first attacks the Company's unwritten rule, claiming that it is an unqualified prohibition of wage discussions among employees. Such discussions, the Board argues, can be an integral part of organizational activity, and a rule banning the exchange by employees of wage information can significantly inhibit the employees' exercise of their Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.

Rules governing the conduct of employees on company time and property are often necessary and an employer has a right to maintain them. This right, however, is not "unlimited in the sense that (it) can be exercised without regard to any duty which the existence of rights in others may place upon (the) employer . . .. Opportunity to organize and proper discipline are both essential elements in a balanced society." Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 793, 798, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 89 L.Ed. 1372, 1376 (1945).

It is obvious that higher wages are a frequent objective of organizational activity, and discussions about wages are necessary to further that goal. "The right of self-organization depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages of self-organization from others." N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 113, 76 S.Ct. 679, 685, 100 L.Ed. 975, 983 (1956). That is not to say that every wage discussion is protected activity. 2 It is sufficient for finding the rule prima facie violative of section 8(a)(1) to note that wage discussions can be protected activity and that an employer's unqualified rule barring such discussions has the tendency to inhibit such activity. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23, 85 S.Ct. 171, 172, 13 L.Ed.2d 1, 3 (1964); N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 429 F.2d 1223, 1227 (3d Cir. 1970).

Once it is established that the employer's conduct adversely affects employees' protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate "legitimate and substantial business justifications" for his conduct. N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., Inc., 389 U.S. 375, 378, 88 S.Ct. 543, 545, 19 L.Ed.2d 614, 617 (1967); N.L.R.B. v. Jemco, Inc., 465 F.2d 1148, 1152 n.7 (6th Cir. 1972). In weighing the justifications offered by the employer, we must heed the Supreme Court's admonition that "(i)t is the primary responsibility of the Board and not of the courts 'to strike the proper balance between the asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy.' " N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., supra, 389 U.S. at 378, 88 S.Ct. at 546, 19 L.Ed.2d at 617 quoting N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26, 33-34, 87 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 18 L.Ed.2d 1027, 1034-1035 (1967).

The only evidence in the record tending to justify the rule is the testimony of Vice-President Mallory. Mallory opined that "spending one's time standing around discussing salary is . . . a waste of time, (and) secondly, it is a disruptive thing . . .. " The Company's brief argues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 2002
    ...a justifiable business reason to inhibit the opportunity for an employee to exercise ... rights [under the NLRA]." (Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB (3d Cir.1976) 532 F.2d 916, 919.) 2. The Meaning of Section 232 protects an employee who discloses his or her "wages," which is broadly defined to incl......
  • Indep. Elec. Contractors of Houston, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 17, 2013
    ...343 NLRB 564, 565 (2004) (citing In re Desert Palace d/b/a Caesar's Palace, 336 NLRB 271, 272 n. 6 (2001); Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 918 (3rd Cir.1976)). Whether IEC–Houston could have offered additional justifications for its practices, or disproved the alleged systemic disadv......
  • Medeco Sec. Locks, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • April 29, 1998
    ...the asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy.' ' " Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 918 (3d Cir.1976) (quoting NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378, 88 S.Ct. 543, 545-46, 19 L.Ed.2d 614 (1967)). On review, we m......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Big Three Indus. Gas & Equipment Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 24, 1978
    ...351 F.2d 74, 79 (5th Cir. 1965). This less exacting standard represents the prevailing view among other circuits. Jeanette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 920, n.5 (3d Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Elias Bros. Restaurants, Inc., 496 F.2d 1165, 1167 (6th Cir. 1974); NLRB v. Central Press of Cal., 527 F.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Can An Employer Prohibit Employees From Discussing Their Wages With Each Other?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 3, 2023
    ...discussions among employees without limitations as to time or place is presumptively invalid under the Act"); Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916, 919-20 (3d Cir. 1976) ("Accordingly, we sustain the Board's finding that the Company's rule broadly prohibiting discussion of wages among empl......
2 books & journal articles
  • Pay discrimination claims after Ledbetter.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 75 No. 4, October 2008
    • October 1, 2008
    ...(wage discussions); Scientific-Atlanta, 278 NLRB 622 (1986) (merit increase discussions); Jeannette Corp., 217 NLRB 653 (1975), enf'd 532 F.2d 916 (3d. Cir. 1976) (wage discussions). Employers should also consider the possibility that state law may prohibit pay-secrecy (99) Nat'l R.R. Passe......
  • Puzzling stock options and compensation norms.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 149 No. 6, June 2001
    • June 1, 2001
    ...to compensation, was an unfair labor practice but implying that some restrictions would be acceptable), and Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB, 532 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1976) (opining that discussion about wages could be protected, concerted activity as necessary to further the goal of organizational act......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT