Question
The Emporium Capwell Company (Company) operates a department store in San Francisco. At all times relevant to this litigation it was a party to the
The Emporium Capwell Company (Company) operates a department store in San
Francisco. At all times relevant to this litigation it was a party to the collective-bargaining
the agreement negotiated by the San Francisco Retailer's Council, of which it was a
member, and the Department Store Employees Union (Union), which represented all
stock and marketing area employees of the Company. The agreement, in which the
Union was recognized as the sole collective-bargaining agency for all covered
employees, prohibited employment discrimination by reason of race, color, creed,
national origin, age, or sex, as well as union activity. It had a no-strike or lockout clause,
and it established grievance and arbitration machinery for processing any claimed
violation of the contract, including a violation of the anti-discrimination clause.
On April 3, 1968, a group of Company employees covered by the agreement met with
the secretary-treasurer of the Union, Walter Johnson, to present a list of grievances
including a claim that the Company was discriminating on the basis of race in making
assignments and promotions. The Union official agreed to certain of the grievances and
to investigate the charge of racial discrimination. He appointed an investigating
committee and prepared a report on the employees' grievances, which he submitted to
the Retailer's Council and which the Council in turn referred to the Company. The report
described "the possibility of racial discrimination" as perhaps the most important issue
raised by the employees and termed the situation at the Company as potentially
explosive if corrective action were not taken. It offers as an example of the problem the
Company's failure to promote a Negro stock employee regarded by other employees as
an outstanding candidate but a victim of racial discrimination.
Shortly after receiving the report, the Company's labor relations director met
representatives and agreed to "look into the matter" of discrimination, and see what
needed to be done. Apparently unsatisfied with these representations, the Union held a
meeting in September attended by Union officials, Company employees, and
representatives of the California Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) and the
local anti-poverty agency. The secretary-treasurer of the Union announced that the
Union had concluded that the Company was discriminating, and that it would process
every such grievance through to arbitration if necessary. Testimony about the
Company's practices was taken and transcribed by a court reporter, and the next day
the Union notified the Company of its formal charge and demanded that the union-
management Adjustment Board be convened "to hear the entire case."
At the September meeting some of the Company's employees had expressed their view
that the contract procedures were inadequate to handle a systemic grievance of this
sort; they suggested that the Union instead begin picketing the store in protest. Johnson
explained that the collective agreement bound the Union to its processes and
expressed his view that successful grievants would be helping not only themselves but
all others who might be the victims of invidious discrimination as well. The FEPC and
anti-poverty agency representatives offered the same advice. Nonetheless, when the
Adjustment Board meeting convened on October 16, James Joseph Hollins, Torn
Hawkins, and two other employees whose testimony the Union had intended to elicit
refused to participate in the grievance procedure. Instead, Hollins read a statement
objecting to reliance on correction of individual inequities as an approach to the problem
of discrimination at the store and demanding that the president of the Company meet
with the four protestants to work out a broader agreement for dealing with the issue as
they saw it. The four employees then walked out of the hearing.
...On Saturday, November 2, Hollins, Hawkins, and at least two other employees
picketed the store throughout the day and distributed at the entrance handbills urging
consumers not to patronize the store. Johnson encountered the picketing employees,
again urged them to rely on the grievance process, and warned that they might be fired
for their activities. The pickets, however, were not dissuaded, and they continued to
press their demand to deal directly with the Company president.
On November 7, Hollins and Hawkins were given written warnings that a repetition of
the picketing or public statements about the Company could lead to their discharge.
When the conduct was repeated the following Saturday, the two employees were fired.
[T]he NLRB Trial Examiner found that the discharged employees had believed in good
faith that the Company was discriminating against minority employees, and that they
had resorted to concerted activity on the basis of that belief. He concluded, however,
that their activity was not protected by 7 of the Act and that their discharges did not,
therefore, violate S 8(a)(1).
The Board, after oral argument, adopted the findings and conclusions of its Trial
Examiner and dismissed the complaint. Among the findings adopted by the Board was
that the discharged employees' course of conduct was no mere presentation of a
grievance but nothing short of a demand that the [Company] bargain with the picketing
employees for the entire group of minority employees.
The Board concluded that protection of such an attempt to bargain would undermine the
statutory system of bargaining through an exclusive, elected representative, impede
elected unions' efforts at bettering the working conditions of minority employees, "and
place on the Employer an unreasonable burden of attempting to placate self-designated
representatives of minority groups while abiding by the terms of a valid bargaining
agreement and attempting in good faith to meet whatever demands the bargaining
representative put forth under that agreement."
On respondent's petition for review the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. The
court was of the view that concerted activity directed against racial discrimination enjoys
a "unique status" by virtue of the national labor policy against discrimination....The
issue, then, is whether such attempts to engage in separate bargaining are protected by
7 of the Act or proscribed by 9(a).
Central to the policy of fostering collective bargaining, where the employees elect that
course, is the principle of majority rule. If the majority of a unit chooses union
representation, the NLRB permits it to bargain with its employer to make union
membership a condition of employment, thus, imposing its choice upon the minority.
In vesting the representatives of the majority with this broad power, Congress did not, of
course, authorize a tyranny of the majority over minority interests. First, it confined the
exercise of these powers to the context of a "unit appropriate" for the purposes of
collective bargaining, i.e., a group of employees with a sufficient commonality of
circumstances to ensure against the submergence of a minority with distinctively
different interests in the terms and conditions of their employment. Second, it undertook
in the 1959 Landrum-Griffin amendments to assure that minority voices are heard as
they are in the functioning of a democratic institution. Third, we have held, by the very
nature of the exclusive bargaining representative's status as representative of all unit
employees, Congress implicitly imposed upon it a duty fairly and in good faith to
represent the interests of minorities within the unit. And the Board has taken the position
that a union's refusal to process grievances against racial discrimination in violation of
that duty is an unfair labor practice....
The decision by a handful of employees to bypass a grievance procedure in favor of
attempting to bargain with their employer...may or may not be predicated upon the
actual existence of discrimination. An employer confronted with bargaining demands
from each of several minority groups who would not necessarily, or even probably, be
able to agree to remain real steps satisfactory to all at once. Competing claims on the
employer's ability to accommodate each group's demands, e.g., for reassignments and
promotions to a limited number of positions, could only set one group against the other
even if it is not the employer's intention to divide and overcome them....In this instance
we do not know precisely what form the demands advanced by Hollins, Hawkins, et al,
would take, but the nature of the grievance that motivated them indicates that the
demands would have included the transfer of some minority employees to sales areas
in which higher commissions were paid. Yet the collective-bargaining agreement
provided that no employee would be transferred from a higher-paying to a lower-paying
classification except by consent or in the course of a layoff or reduction in force. The
potential for conflict between the minority and other employees in this situation is
manifest. With each group able to enforce its conflicting demandsthe incumbent
employees by resort to contractual processes and minority employees by economic
coercionthe probability of strife and deadlock is high; the making headway against
discriminatory practices would be minimal.
* * *
Accordingly, we think neither aspect of respondent's contention in support of a right to
short-circuit orderly, established processes eliminating discrimination in employment is
well-founded. The policy of industrial self-determination as expressed in 7 does not
require fragmentation of the bargaining unit along racial or other lines in order to consist
with the national labor policy against discrimination. And in the face of such
fragmentation, whatever its effect on discriminatory practices, the bargaining process
that the principle of exclusive representation is meant to lubricate could not endure
unhampered.
CASE QUESTIONS
1. Why did the picketers think that the union's response had been inadequate?
2. In becoming members of the union, which had a contract that included an
antidiscrimination clause along with a no-strike clause and a no-lockout clause,
did the protesting employees waive all right to pursue discrimination claims in
court
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started