OCTOBER TERM, 1995
Syllabus
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
No. 94-947. Argued October 10, 1995—Decided November 28, 1995
In the course of holding that respondent company committed "unfair labor practices" when it refused to interview or retain 11 job applicants because of their union membership, the National Labor Relations Board determined that all of the applicants were protected "employee[s]" as that word is defined in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 152(3), even though they intended to try to organize the company if they were hired and would have been paid by the union while they set about their organizing. The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory word "employee" does not cover (and therefore the Act does not protect from antiunion discrimination) those who work for a company while a union simultaneously pays them to organize that company.
Held: A worker may be a company's "employee," within the terms of the
National Labor Relations Act, even if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to help the union organize the company. Pp. 88-98. (a) The Board may lawfully interpret § 152(3)'s language—i. e., "[t]he term 'employee' shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states otherwise"—to include company workers who are also paid union organizers. The Board's broad, literal reading of "employee" is entitled to considerable deference as the interpretation of the agency created by Congress to administer the Act. See, e. g., Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 891. Moreover, several strong general arguments favor the Board's position. First, the Board's decision is consistent with the Act's language, particularly the "any employee" phrase, which is broad enough to include, under the ordinary dictionary definitions of "employee," those company workers whom a union also pays for organizing. Second, the Board's interpretation is consistent with several of the Act's purposes—such as protecting employees' right to organize for mutual aid without employer interference and encouraging and protecting the collective-bargaining process—and with the legislative history. Third, the Board's reading is consistent with this Court's decisions. See, e. g., ibid. Finally, § 186(c)(1) also seems specifically to contemplate the possibility that a company's employee might also work for a union. Pp. 88-92.
85
Page: Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007