## Facts

- Town & Country Electric, Inc., a nonunion electrical contractor, sought workers for a construction project in Minnesota.
- Several applicants were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and intended to organize Town & Country if hired.
- The applicants planned to work for Town & Country while simultaneously remaining on the union payroll as paid organizers (“salts”).
- Town & Country refused to interview all but one of these applicants; the one hired was later discharged.
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging the refusals to interview, hire, and retain the applicants were based on union affiliation and organizing activity.
- The NLRB concluded the applicants were “employee[s]” under NLRA § 2(3) and thus protected from antiunion discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether a worker is an “employee” under NLRA § 2(3) when the worker, while working for an employer, is simultaneously paid by a union to organize that employer.
2. Whether the NLRB may interpret § 2(3)’s definition of “employee” to include paid union organizers for purposes of NLRA protections against antiunion discrimination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eighth Circuit and upheld the NLRB’s interpretation.
- The Court held that a worker may be a company “employee” under the NLRA even if the worker is also paid by a union to organize the company.
- The Court concluded that the Act’s text is broad enough to cover union-paid organizers and contains no explicit exclusion for them.
- The Court accepted the NLRB’s construction as a permissible interpretation by the agency charged with administering the NLRA.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 2(3)’s term “employee,” framed as “any employee,” is broad and may include workers who simultaneously receive union compensation for organizing.
- Courts generally owe considerable deference to the NLRB’s reasonable interpretations of the NLRA’s coverage terms, including “employee.”
- Common-law agency principles allow dual service: a person may be the servant of two masters at the same time as to the same act, so union payment does not inherently negate employee status with the employer.
- Policy concerns about loyalty or workplace disruption do not justify narrowing the statutory term where the text and structure support inclusion; such limits are for Congress to impose explicitly.

## Conclusion

The Court held that union-paid organizers can fall within the NLRA’s definition of “employee,” allowing the NLRB to treat discrimination against such applicants and workers as an unfair labor practice when motivated by antiunion animus.


Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd. v. Town & Country Elec., Inc., 516 U.S. 85 (1995)