Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co. v. NLRB - 138 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1943)

Rule:

An employer may discharge an employee for a good reason, a poor reason, or no reason at all, so long as the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 158, are not violated. It is a violation to discharge an employee because he has engaged in activities on behalf of a union. Conversely, an employer may retain an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all, and the reason is not a concern of the National Labor Relations Board. 

Facts:

On charges filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Workers of America, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) , a complaint issued dated November 26, 1941, alleging that the petitioner was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(1), (2), (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1), (2), (3). The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the petitioner, in September, 1933, created and foisted a labor organization, known as the Budd Employee Representation Association, upon its employees and thereafter contributed financial support to the Association and dominated its activities. The amended complaint also alleges that in July, 1941, the petitioner discharged an employee, Walter Weigand, because of his activities on behalf of the union, and in October of that year refused to reinstate another employee, Milton Davis, for similar reasons. The petitioner denies these charges as does the Association which was permitted to intervene. After extensive hearings before a trial examiner the NLRB on June 10, 1942 issued its decision and order, requiring the disestablishment of the Association and the reinstatement of Weigand and Davis.

Issue:

Did the employer engage in unfair labor practices, in violation of 29 U.S.C.S. § 158, when it dominated the association's activities and fired the workers because of union activities?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

 In upholding the order of the NLRB, the court ruled that the finding that the association was unlawfully subject to the employer's control was amply supported by the evidence. There was also sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the workers were discriminated against because of their union connections, even though there was some evidence that one of the workers had repeatedly been cited for misconduct.