## Facts

- Emporium Capwell Company operated under a collective-bargaining agreement with Retail Store Employees Union, Local 410, the certified exclusive bargaining representative for employees.
- Black employees complained to the union that the employer engaged in racial discrimination in assignments, promotions, and other employment terms.
- The union investigated and invoked the contractual grievance procedure, requesting that the joint union-management adjustment board convene to address the discrimination claims.
- Several employees, dissatisfied with proceeding only through union processes and contrary to union advice, picketed the store with signs protesting racial discrimination and urging the public not to patronize the store.
- The employer warned the employees to stop picketing and discharged them when they resumed.
- A community organization affiliated with the employees filed unfair-labor-practice charges alleging the discharges interfered with employees’ § 7 rights, violating NLRA § 8(a)(1).
- The NLRB found the discharges lawful because the employees’ conduct was an attempt at separate bargaining that bypassed the exclusive representative and therefore fell outside § 7 protection.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, treating anti-discrimination concerted activity as having a special status and directing an inquiry into whether the union was remedying discrimination as effectively as possible.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether employees’ picketing and direct efforts to negotiate with the employer over alleged racial discrimination are protected “concerted activities” under NLRA § 7 when they bypass and conflict with the § 9(a) exclusive bargaining representative.
2. Whether federal anti-discrimination policy, including Title VII, requires affording § 7 protection to such activity notwithstanding the NLRA’s exclusive-representation structure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and reinstated the NLRB’s approach.
- The Court held that § 7 does not protect concerted activity that seeks to compel an employer to bargain with a minority subgroup over terms and conditions of employment, bypassing the exclusive representative under § 9(a), even when the subject is racial discrimination.
- The Court accepted the Board’s characterization of the conduct as “separate bargaining” (wildcat-type activity) that undermines the statutory system of exclusive representation.
- The Court rejected a special oversight test requiring the Board or courts to evaluate whether the union pursued discrimination claims by the most expedient and effective means.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 9(a) establishes majority-rule exclusive representation; the employer’s duty to bargain runs to the certified representative, not to subgroups within the unit.
- NLRA § 7 protects concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, but protection is limited where conduct attacks the exclusive-representation framework by demanding separate bargaining.
- Anti-discrimination policy is strongly favored, but Title VII does not displace the NLRA’s structural rules for collective bargaining; discrimination claims must be pursued in ways consistent with the exclusive-representation system.
- Minority interests are protected within the NLRA framework through mechanisms such as the union’s duty of fair representation and contractual grievance/arbitration procedures, rather than through subgroup bargaining with the employer.

## Conclusion

The Court held that employees protesting racial discrimination may not use picketing or other concerted pressure to force an employer to negotiate directly with a minority subgroup outside the union’s grievance and bargaining processes; such activity is unprotected under NLRA § 7 because it conflicts with § 9(a) exclusive representation, while other statutory remedies for discrimination remain available through appropriate channels.


Emporium Capwell Co. v. W. Addition Cmty. Org., 420 U.S. 50 (1975)