1. Did the employer seem to intentionally violate the law? Explain.

2. What do you think would motivate an employer to prefer to deal directly with an employee participation group rather than a union?

3. Do you think it’s harmful to put the employer on “both sides of the bargaining table”? Explain the pros and cons.

Issue: Whether it is an unfair labor practice for a nonunion company to negotiate with its workers to resolve labor issues through the use of “employee participation” or “employee-management” focus groups rather than a union.

Facts: In order to minimize financial losses, a non-union employer cut expenses by revising its employee attendance policy and replacing its scheduled wage increase with lump sum payments based on longevity with the company. Several of the employees expressed their dissatisfaction and in response, the employer decided to meet with employees to discuss their concerns. Out of this meeting came several issues which the employer decided to address by forming groups to receive employee input. The five action committees formed to address the issues were facilitated by management, who also unilaterally decided to remove committee members who served on more than one committee, included a management employee on all committees and made the final decisions as to membership.

Decision: The court held that these committees constituted labor organizations and they were dominated by the employer, thus constituting an unfair labor practice. The Act defined a labor organization as “any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.” Each of the committees was formed and existed for the purpose of “dealing with” the company, a term the Supreme Court has determined is much broader than collective bargaining. The company dominated the organization because it proposed and essentially imposed the action committees upon the employees as the only acceptable mechanism for resolution of their grievances, it unilaterally developed the committees, despite the employee’s reluctance to accept the committee structure, the employer pressed for it, and several of the committees disbanded when there was a demand for union recognition, even though management said the employees could continue to meet after management withdrew from the committees until the recognition bid was over.

This, the groups were in fact unions under the definition of the statute and they were dominated by management, which is an unfair labor practice.