## Facts

- An employer at a unionized facility created seven formal employee-participation committees: six safety committees and one fitness committee.
- Each committee included employees and management representatives as full participants and operated by consensus, effectively giving management veto power over proposals.
- The committees addressed workplace safety and related conditions and generated proposals to management, including agreed-upon safety incentive awards.
- The employer also held quarterly safety conferences where employees, in small groups, made safety suggestions; participants were instructed not to discuss subjects reserved for collective bargaining.
- The union and the NLRB General Counsel alleged the committees were employer-dominated labor organizations under NLRA § 8(a)(2) and that the employer bypassed the union in violation of § 8(a)(5); they also challenged the safety conferences.
- An ALJ found the committees unlawful under §§ 8(a)(2) and 8(a)(5), but found no violation arising from the safety conferences; the Board reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether the safety and fitness committees were “labor organizations” under NLRA § 2(5) and were employer dominated or supported in violation of § 8(a)(2).
2. Whether the employer unlawfully bypassed the exclusive bargaining representative by dealing with the committees on terms and conditions of employment, violating § 8(a)(5).
3. Whether the quarterly safety conferences constituted unlawful direct dealing with employees on mandatory bargaining subjects in violation of § 8(a)(5).

## Decision

- The Board held the joint safety and fitness committees were labor organizations under § 2(5).
- The Board found the employer dominated and supported the committees, violating § 8(a)(2).
- The Board held the employer’s dealings with the committees concerning working conditions unlawfully bypassed the union, violating § 8(a)(5).
- The Board agreed with the ALJ that the quarterly safety conferences did not violate the NLRA.

## Legal Principles

- A “labor organization” under NLRA § 2(5) includes any employee group that exists, in whole or in part, for the purpose of dealing with the employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours, or conditions of work.
- “Dealing with” does not require formal collective bargaining; it is sufficient that employees make proposals on workplace matters and management engages in a bilateral process of considering, accepting, or rejecting them.
- An employer violates § 8(a)(2) if it dominates, interferes with, or supports an employee committee that exists to deal with the employer over wages, hours, or working conditions; indicia include employer initiation, structuring, managerial participation as members, and decision rules that give management control.
- In a unionized workplace, an employer violates § 8(a)(5) by bypassing the union and dealing with another employee group on mandatory subjects of bargaining.
- Periodic meetings aimed at information gathering or consultation, without an ongoing proposal-response structure and with limits intended to avoid bargaining subjects, may be lawful.

## Conclusion

The Board found that employer-created, management-controlled safety and fitness committees that generated proposals on working conditions were employer-dominated labor organizations and an unlawful channel for dealing around the union, while separately conducted quarterly safety conferences—structured as limited, nonbargaining discussions—did not constitute unlawful direct dealing.


E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 311 N.L.R.B. 893 (1993)