## Facts

- Electromation, Inc., a manufacturer with roughly 200 employees, changed employment policies and reduced certain benefits amid financial difficulty.
- Employee dissatisfaction increased regarding matters including wages, bonuses, attendance programs, and leave-related policies.
- Management created multiple “action committees” to address these concerns, including committees on absenteeism/infractions and the attendance bonus program.
- Each committee typically included about five employees and at least one management representative; the Employee Benefits Manager participated on all committees.
- The committees met weekly on company premises; management set or approved meeting times and agendas and participated in discussions.
- The committees discussed wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and developed proposals and recommendations that were communicated to management for consideration.
- While the committees operated, the Teamsters sought recognition as the bargaining representative; the union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging unlawful employer domination and interference.
- After the charge, Electromation discontinued the committees, but the NLRB addressed whether their prior operation violated the NLRA.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer-created action committees were “labor organizations” under NLRA § 2(5) because they existed, at least in part, for “dealing with” the employer concerning wages, hours, grievances, or conditions of work.
2. If the committees were labor organizations, whether Electromation dominated or interfered with them, or provided unlawful support, in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(2), and thereby interfered with § 7 rights in violation of § 8(a)(1).

## Decision

- The NLRB held the action committees were “labor organizations” under § 2(5) because employee participants, acting in a representative capacity, engaged in a pattern of bilateral exchanges with management about wages and other working conditions.
- The NLRB found Electromation unlawfully dominated and assisted the committees in violation of § 8(a)(2) by creating them, structuring their operations, participating through management representatives, and controlling meeting logistics and processes.
- The NLRB concluded the § 8(a)(2) violation also constituted a derivative violation of § 8(a)(1) because employer-controlled representation interfered with employees’ § 7 right to choose representatives of their own choosing.
- The NLRB ordered Electromation to cease and desist from establishing, dominating, or supporting such committees and to post remedial notices.

## Legal Principles

- An employee committee is a “labor organization” under NLRA § 2(5) if employees participate and the committee exists, at least in part, to “deal with” the employer about grievances, wages, hours, or other working conditions.
- “Dealing with” is broader than formal collective bargaining and can be shown by a pattern of bilateral communications in which employee representatives make proposals or recommendations and management responds or acts.
- NLRA § 8(a)(2) prohibits an employer from dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of a labor organization or contributing support to it; employer creation, managerial participation, and structural control are strong indicators of unlawful domination.
- Not all workplace committees are labor organizations; bodies limited to essentially managerial or adjudicative functions, and that do not engage in “dealing” over statutory subjects, may fall outside § 2(5).
- An employer-dominated representative committee that deals with management over terms and conditions of employment interferes with employees’ § 7 rights, supporting a related § 8(a)(1) violation.

## Conclusion

The NLRB held that Electromation’s management-created action committees, which functioned as representative bodies engaging management on wages and other working conditions, were labor organizations unlawfully dominated and supported in violation of § 8(a)(2), with a resulting § 8(a)(1) violation, warranting cease-and-desist relief and notice posting.


Electromation, Inc., 309 N.L.R.B. 990 (1992)