## Facts

- Wisconsin Motor Corporation employed production workers, many paid on a piecework/incentive basis, represented by Local 248, UAW.
- The union maintained a long-standing “production ceiling” limiting the amount of piecework earnings members would accept as immediate pay, while allowing members to produce more.
- The ceiling level had been bargained over, but the collective bargaining agreement did not bar the employer from paying for production above the ceiling.
- Since 1944, the ceiling was enforced as a union rule through internal discipline, including fines and suspension, without affecting employment.
- Petitioners exceeded the ceiling, accepted pay for their actual production, and were fined and suspended by the union.
- Petitioners refused to pay; the union sued in state court to collect the fines.
- Petitioners filed charges with the NLRB alleging the union’s enforcement restrained or coerced their § 7 rights in violation of NLRA § 8(b)(1)(A).

## Issues

1. Whether a petition for certiorari is timely when filed within 90 days of entry of the court of appeals’ decree, but more than 90 days after the opinion, when petitioners received no notice of entry of judgment at the time of the opinion.
2. Whether NLRA § 8(b)(1)(A) prohibits a union from enforcing, by internal fines and suspension, a properly adopted production-ceiling rule governing members’ acceptance of piecework earnings.

## Decision

- The petition for certiorari was timely because it was filed within 90 days of the decree and petitioners had not received notice of entry of judgment when the opinion issued.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and the NLRB.
- The Court held that § 8(b)(1)(A) permits enforcement of a union rule that is properly adopted, advances a legitimate union interest, does not impair statutory labor policy, and is reasonably enforced against members who remain free to resign and avoid the rule while retaining job security by paying required dues.
- Applying that standard, the Court found no unfair labor practice in the union’s fines and suspension for violating the production ceiling.

## Legal Principles

- A union may impose internal discipline (including reasonable fines, suspension, or expulsion) without violating § 8(b)(1)(A) when the rule is properly adopted, serves a legitimate union interest, and conflicts with no statutory labor policy.
- § 8(b)(1)(A) is not violated when members can avoid the rule by resigning from membership and the union’s enforcement does not threaten job retention or involve employer-imposed sanctions.
- Internal union discipline enforced through union processes (including court collection of fines) is treated differently from discipline that relies on employer action; the absence of employer participation supports permissibility under the NLRA.
- A union rule is impermissible under § 8(b)(1)(A) if it demonstrably impedes collective bargaining, induces unlawful employer discrimination, creates statutory “featherbedding,” breaches the collective bargaining agreement, or reflects a failure of the duty of fair representation.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the NLRB’s dismissal of the unfair labor practice charges, holding that a union may reasonably enforce a properly adopted production-ceiling rule through internal fines and suspension where the rule serves a legitimate union interest, does not conflict with statutory labor policy, and does not coerce members through employer-backed threats to job security.


Scofield v. National Labor Relations Board, 394 U.S. 423 (1969)