## Facts

- Sam McCullum was a veteran wide receiver for the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks and had played for the club since its early seasons, starting for multiple years.
- In 1981, Seahawks players selected McCullum as their union representative to the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA).
- McCullum’s role as player representative created conflict with Seahawks head coach Jack Patera, who made hostile comments about McCullum’s union involvement.
- During the 1982 preseason, McCullum helped organize a union “solidarity handshake” involving Seahawks players and players on the opposing team before a preseason game.
- Patera reacted angrily to the handshake demonstration, and team management conveyed threats of discipline connected to the display (including talk of fines), later withdrawn.
- McCullum also spoke publicly about team medical practices, stating that injured players were being cleared to play before fully recovering.
- Evidence credited by the ALJ showed management linked McCullum’s job security to his union role and that Patera urged staff to get rid of McCullum because of his union activity.
- Near the end of training camp in 1982, Seattle acquired another veteran receiver (Roger Carr) and then waived (cut) McCullum shortly before the September 1982 NFL players’ strike.
- The Seahawks contended the waiver was a football/roster decision based on competitive needs and performance, but record evidence included internal evaluations projecting McCullum as a starter close in time to the waiver.
- McCullum and the NFLPA filed unfair labor practice charges. After a hearing, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Seattle violated the NLRA by discharging McCullum due to anti-union animus and also committed independent interference violations; Seattle filed exceptions to the Board.

## Issues

1. Whether the Seahawks violated NLRA § 8(a)(3) and derivatively § 8(a)(1) by waiving Sam McCullum because of his protected union activity as the team’s NFLPA representative.
2. Whether the Seahawks separately violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) through coercive statements and monitoring of protected activity tied to McCullum’s union role.
3. Under the Wright Line framework, whether the Seahawks proved it would have waived McCullum even absent his protected activity.

## Decision

- The NLRB largely adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions and held that the Seahawks violated § 8(a)(3) and § 8(a)(1) by discharging (waiving) McCullum because of his protected union activity.
- The Board found the General Counsel established unlawful motive through evidence of McCullum’s prominent protected activity, management hostility (including Patera’s remarks), and the timing of the waiver in the context of labor unrest.
- The Board rejected the Seahawks’ asserted competitive/performance justification as not credited and/or pretextual on this record, and held the Seahawks failed to prove it would have made the same decision absent McCullum’s protected conduct.
- The Board also found independent § 8(a)(1) violations based on coercive conduct connected to McCullum’s union activity (including management statements and monitoring found unlawful on the credited evidence).
- The Board ordered standard make-whole relief, including reinstatement, backpay with interest, expungement of references to the unlawful discharge, a cease-and-desist order, and posting of notices.
- Member Johansen dissented from the Board’s decision.

## Legal Principles

- An employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(3) (and also § 8(a)(1)) by discharging an employee to discourage union membership or activity, including service as a union representative and related protected concerted conduct.
- Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must show protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action; the burden then shifts to the employer to show it would have taken the same action even absent the protected activity.
- Evidence supporting discriminatory motive can include timing, hostile statements by decisionmakers, disparate or irregular procedures, and proof that the employer’s stated reason is not credible.
- Employer statements or conduct that reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights violate § 8(a)(1), including unlawful threats or unlawful monitoring of protected activity.
- The Board generally defers to an ALJ’s credibility findings when supported by the record.
- Reinstatement, backpay, and notice posting are customary remedies designed to restore the status quo after an unlawful discharge.

## Conclusion

The NLRB held that the Seattle Seahawks waived Sam McCullum because of his protected activity as the team’s NFLPA representative, rejected the club’s claimed performance-based explanation under Wright Line, found related § 8(a)(1) interference on the credited evidence, and ordered reinstatement with backpay and other standard remedial relief.


Seattle Seahawks v. NFLPA & Sam McCullum, 292 N.L.R.B. 899 (1989)