## Facts

- Darlington Manufacturing Co. operated a single textile mill in South Carolina.
- A majority of Darlington’s stock was owned by Deering Milliken, Inc., a New York marketing company controlled by Roger Milliken and other Milliken family members; the NLRB found the Milliken interests controlled numerous related textile manufacturers and mills.
- In March 1956, the Textile Workers Union began an organizing campaign at Darlington; management opposed the effort and threatened to close the mill if the union won.
- On September 6, 1956, the union narrowly won a representation election.
- Shortly after the union victory, Darlington liquidated, permanently closed the mill, and sold equipment.
- The NLRB found the closure was motivated by antiunion animus and violated NLRA § 8(a)(3), and it issued an order against Darlington and related parties.
- The Fourth Circuit denied enforcement, reasoning the controlling enterprise could terminate all or part of its business regardless of antiunion motive.
- The Supreme Court granted review in petitions filed by the union and the NLRB and decided the matters together.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(3) by permanently closing its entire business because of antiunion animus.
2. Whether closing part of a business, including one plant in a multi-plant enterprise, violates § 8(a)(3) when done to discourage union activity in remaining operations.
3. What showing is required to treat a plant closure as unlawful where those controlling the closing have substantial interests in other businesses whose employees might be deterred from organizing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further NLRB findings.
- The Court held it is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close its entire business, even if motivated by antiunion animus.
- The Court held a partial closing can violate § 8(a)(3) if the purpose is to discourage unionism in the employer’s remaining plants and the employer could reasonably foresee that effect.
- The Court further held that, even where the affected operations are in other related businesses, a violation may be shown if the controlling actors close a plant to benefit substantial interests in another business by keeping it nonunion and the relationship makes it probable that employees in that other business will fear closure if organizing continues.
- The Court remanded because the NLRB had not made findings satisfying the standards governing deterrence of unionism in other mills.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(a)(3) does not require an employer to continue operating; a complete shutdown of the entire business is lawful even if undertaken for antiunion reasons.
- A partial shutdown is unlawful under § 8(a)(3) when (i) the purpose is to discourage unionism in remaining operations and (ii) that chilling effect is reasonably foreseeable.
- Where those controlling the closing have substantial interests in another business, a closure can violate § 8(a)(3) if it is undertaken to discourage unionism in that other business and the relationship is such that employees there would likely fear closure as a consequence of continued organizing.
- The NLRB must make specific findings on purpose and reasonably foreseeable effect under the applicable standard; absent such findings, enforcement may be vacated and the matter remanded.

## Conclusion

The Court drew a line between lawful complete business closures and unlawful partial closures used as discrimination to deter union activity in continuing operations, and it required the NLRB to make targeted findings on intent and foreseeable deterrent effect before imposing liability based on a shutdown within a broader set of related businesses.


Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965)