Armco Steel Corporation v. NLRB
| Decision Date | 27 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 16169.,16169. |
| Citation | 344 F.2d 621 |
| Parties | ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Jerome Powell, Washington, D. C., for petitioner, Frank Cummings, William H. Willcox, Gall, Lane & Powell, Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Stephen Goldberg, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Vivian Asplund, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief.
Theodore Repper, Jr., Middletown, Ohio, on the brief for Armco Employees Independent Federation, amicus curiae.
Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
The principal question here is whether a provision in a collective bargaining agreement voluntarily entered into between an employer and a labor union, which prohibits the distribution of all literature on the property of the employer, violates Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.1
The Board held the provision invalid when maintained and enforced to prohibit employee distribution, on company property in non-working areas and during non-working hours, of union literature of any labor union other than that of the collective bargaining representative. It issued an order, which is the subject of this review, requiring the company to cease and desist from maintaining and enforcing the no-distribution clause with respect to employee distribution of literature of any labor union except the incumbent union. 148 NLRB No. 126.
The company had maintained and enforced the no-distribution provision uniformly against all of its employees. The rule adopted by the Board in the present case, which favors employees supporting a rival nonincumbent union over loyal employee-supporters of the collective bargaining representative, is in our opinion wrong and will not be enforced by this Court. We hold that the no-distribution provision is valid with respect to all of the employees of Armco.
The facts are not in dispute. Armco has a steel producing plant and two fabricating plants at Middletown, Ohio, and a complex of blast furnaces and coke ovens located a short distance therefrom at Hamilton, Ohio. Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as AEIF) has been the certified bargaining representative of a unit of Armco's production and maintenance workers since 1944. There are approximately fifty-nine hundred employees in the unit, of which forty-eight hundred work at the Middletown plant and the remainder at Hamilton.
United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO has been engaged for many years in a continuous campaign to win the support of Armco's employees. Elections have been held in 1944, 1947 and 1962, all of which were won decisively by AEIF. Over 91% of the eligible employees voted in the 1944 election; over 94% in the 1947 election, and 95% in 1962.2
The Trial Examiner's findings with respect to the form of the no-distribution provision contained in the collective bargaining agreement are in the footnote.3 These provisions in substantially the same form were contained in the 1944 collective bargaining agreement and have been continued in the subsequent agreements.
The uncontradicted evidence was to the effect that a no-distribution provision substantially the same as Armco's is common in numerous collective bargaining agreements, including two of the Steelworkers' agreements.
The Trial Examiner made findings that Armco had offered evidence to show that the no-distribution provisions did not unduly restrict or seriously hamper the organizational activities of Armco's employees; that effective alternative means of communication were available to reach the employees; and that No evidence was offered by General Counsel to refute Armco's showing.
The Trial Examiner decided that the evidence as to the alternative means of communication was not relevant. He held that the contract provision was invalid. He based his decision on Gale Products, Div. of Outboard Marine Corp., 142 NLRB 1246 (1963).4 He stated that there was no evidence to establish the necessity for such a provision to maintain production or discipline and it was therefore unwarranted. He further stated in a footnote:
The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's decision except that it limited the invalidity of the no-distribution provision to employees supporting any labor organization except the collective bargaining agent.
The Trial Examiner and Board both relied on the Board's Gale Products decision, a 3 to 2 decision which established a new policy in conflict with a line of Board decisions extending as far back as 1944. The former policy had upheld the validity of no-distribution provisions in collective bargaining agreements.5
The trouble with the Board's reliance on Gale Products in the present case is that subsequent to its order Gale Products was overturned by the Seventh Circuit. NLRB v. Gale Products, Div. of Outboard Marine Corp., 337 F.2d 390 (C.A.7, 1964). Certiorari was not applied for.
The Board's order is thus left without support. Even prior to the decision of the Seventh Circuit, the Board's decision in Gale Products was not followed by the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio when that Court in a well considered opinion denied an application for injunction to prohibit Armco from enforcing the no-distribution provision pending hearing of the present case.6
Sections 7 and 8 of the Act protect employees in the exercise of their right to engage or refrain from engaging in union activity free from interference, discrimination or coercion on the part of an employer or labor union. Neither Armco nor AEIF interfered with, coerced or discriminated against any of its employees. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement were merely applied uniformly against all employees.
Under Section 9 of the Act the collective bargaining representative was the exclusive representative of all the employees, which included dissident as well as those who were loyal to the incumbent. It was the Board who divided Armco's employees into two classes and held the collective bargaining agreement invalid as to dissident and valid as to loyal employees supporting the representative. The purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to promote industrial peace. Policy making decisions of the Board favoring employees supporting a rival union over those loyal to the incumbent would seem to us to have the opposite effect.
Freedom to contract is perhaps one of the most important rights enjoyed by labor unions and employers. The Board has no power to interfere with the exercise of that right or to sit in judgment on the wisdom of substantive contractual provisions. It may interfere only when a clause in a contract violates a specific statute and is illegal. NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 360, 78 S.Ct. 718, 2 L.Ed.2d 823 (1957); Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944); NLRB v. Industrial Rayon Corp., 297 F.2d 62 (C. A.6, 1961). The Board has not pointed out any specific provision of the Act which is violated by the no-distribution clause.
In our opinion, whatever right employees had under Section 7 to distribute union literature on company property may be waived by their collective bargaining representative. The contractual waiver of rights of equal or greater significance has been upheld.
No strike or lockout: United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956)
Management functions: NLRB v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 395, 72 S.Ct. 824, 96 L.Ed. 1027 (1952).
Ballot and recognition: NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., supra.
Union security: Radio Officers' Union of Commercial Telegraphers Union etc. v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17 (1954).
Hiring hall: Local 357, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, etc. v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667, 81 S.Ct. 835, 6 L.Ed.2d 11 (1961).
Hiring by union foremen: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helton v. N.L.R.B.
...See H & F Binch Co., 168 NLRB 929, 935 (1967); Armco Steel Corp. (v. N.L.R.B.), 148 NLRB 1179, 1185 (1964), enforcement denied, 344 F.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1965). Most circuit courts also embrace this view. See United Steelworkers of America v. NLRB, 393 F.2d 661 (D.C.Cir.1968); NLRB v. United A......
-
N.L.R.B. v. United Technologies Corp., AFL-CI
...incumbent union had the power to waive distribution or solicitation rights as to both itself and its rivals. E.g., Armco Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 344 F.2d 621 (6th Cir.1965) (distribution); NLRB v. Gale Products, Division of Outboard Marine Corp., 337 F.2d 390 (7th Cir.1964) (distribution and I......
-
Korn Industries, Inc. v. NLRB
...enforcing 149 NLRB 1601; May Department Stores Co. v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376, 66 S.Ct. 203, 90 L.Ed. 145 (1945). 7 In Armco Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 344 F. 2d 621 (6th Cir. 1965), the court upheld a contractual provision limiting union distribution to bulletin 8 Paragraphs 1(a), (b) and 2(a), (b) o......
-
Pacemaker Yacht Co., a Div. of Mission Marine, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...federal labor policy, neither courts nor the Board may modify or nullify substantive contractual provisions. See Armco Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 344 F.2d 621, 624-25 (6th Cir. 1965). 2 The waiver of the right to strike over the dispute at issue here violates no principle of labor law and indeed ......