## Facts

- A union obtained authorization cards from a claimed majority of Linden’s employees and demanded recognition as the bargaining representative.
- Linden doubted the union’s claimed majority status and suggested that the union seek an NLRB-conducted election.
- The union filed an election petition but later withdrew it after Linden declined to enter a consent election agreement or commit to accept the election results.
- Linden asserted the organizing effort was improperly assisted by supervisors, tainting the union’s claimed majority support.
- The union renewed its recognition demand; Linden again refused on the same grounds.
- The union struck for recognition and filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging unlawful refusal to bargain.
- The NLRB found no unfair labor practice by Linden apart from the refusal to bargain and dismissed the complaint, reasoning an employer may insist on a Board election rather than accept card-based proof.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding the employer had a duty to seek an election upon receiving evidence of majority support.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer that has committed no independent unfair labor practices violates NLRA § 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize a union claiming majority status based on authorization cards and insisting on an NLRB election.
2. Whether the NLRA requires the employer, rather than the union, to initiate the Board’s election procedure when the employer doubts the union’s card-based majority.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and upheld the NLRB’s dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge (5–4).
- The Court held an employer that has not engaged in unfair labor practices impairing the electoral process does not violate § 8(a)(5) merely by refusing to accept card-based evidence of majority status and insisting on a Board election.
- The Court approved the Board’s rule that, absent an agreement to use a non-election method, the union bears the burden of invoking the Board’s election procedures after the employer refuses recognition.
- The Court concluded the NLRA does not impose a duty on an employer to file an election petition to resolve its good-faith doubt of majority status.

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of employer misconduct that makes a fair election unlikely, the NLRB may treat secret-ballot elections as the preferred method for determining majority support.
- An employer does not commit a per se § 8(a)(5) violation by declining to recognize a union based solely on authorization cards and by insisting on an NLRB election to confirm majority status.
- A union refused recognition despite card evidence generally must initiate the Board’s election process; the NLRA permits, but does not require, an employer to file a petition.
- The rule does not displace bargaining orders and related remedies where employer unfair labor practices undermine the election process.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, where the employer has not independently engaged in unfair labor practices affecting employee choice, the employer may refuse card-based recognition and insist on an NLRB election without violating § 8(a)(5), and the union must take the next step by invoking the Board’s election machinery.


Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co. v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301 (1974)