National Labor Relations Board v. Town & Country Electric, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the Board. It held that the Board had incorrectly interpreted the statutory word “employee.” In the court’s view, that key word does not cover (and therefore the Act does not protect from antiunion discrimination) those who work for a company while a union simultaneously pays them to organize that company. 34 F. 3d 625 , 629 (1994). See also H. B. Zachry Co. v. NLRB, 886 F. 2d 70 , 75 (CA4 1989). For this threshold reason the court refused to enforce the Board’s order.

Because other Circuits have interpreted the word “employee” differently, see, e. g., Willmar Elec. Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 968 F. 2d 1327 , 1330-1331 (CADC 1992) (paid union organizers can be “employees” protected by the Act), cert. denied, 507 U. S. 909 (1993); NLRB v. Henlopen Mfg. Co., 599 F. 2d 26 , 30 (CA2 1979) (same), we granted certiorari. We now resolve the conflict in the Board’s favor.

The Act seeks to improve labor relations (“eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce,” 29 U. S. C. § 151 (1988 ed.)) in large part by granting specific sets of rights to employers and to employ

The relevant statutory language is the following:

“The term ‘employee’ shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.” § 152(3) (emphasis added).

We must specifically decide whether the Board may lawfully interpret this language to include company workers who are also paid union organizers.

We put the question in terms of the Board’s lawful authority because this Court’s decisions recognize that the Board

Several strong general arguments favor the Board’s position. For one thing, the Board’s decision is consistent with the broad language of the Act itself — language that is broad enough to include those company workers whom a union also pays for organizing. The ordinary dictionary definition of “employee” includes any “person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation.” American Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d ed. 1992). See also Black’s Law Dictionary 525 (6th ed. 1990) (an employee is a “person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed”). The phrasing of the Act seems to reiterate the breadth of the ordinary dictionary definition, for it says “[t]he term ‘employee’ shall include any employee.” 29 U. S. C. § 152 (3) (1988 ed.) (emphasis added). Of course, the Act’s definition also contains a list of exceptions, for example, for independent contractors, agricultural laborers, domestic workers, and employees sub

For another thing, the Board’s broad, literal interpretation of the word “employee” is consistent with several of the Act’s purposes, such as protecting “the right of employees to organize for mutual aid without employer interference,” Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793 , 798 (1945); see also 29 U. S. C. § 157 (1988 ed.); and “encouraging and protecting the collective-bargaining process.” Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, at 892. And, insofar as one can infer purpose from congressional reports and floor statements, those sources too are consistent with the Board’s broad interpretation of the word. It is fairly easy to find statements to the effect that an “employee” simply “means someone who works for another for hire,” H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 (1947), and includes “every man on a payroll,” 79 Cong. Rec. 9686 (1935) (colloquy between Reps. Taylor and Connery). See also S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1935) (referring to an employee as a “worker”); H. R. Rep. No. 969, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (same); H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1935) (same); H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1935) (same). At the same time, contrary statements, suggesting a narrow or qualified view of the word, are scarce, or nonexistent — except, of course, those made in respect to the specific (here inapplicable) exclusions written into the statute.

Further, a broad, literal reading of the statute is consistent with cases in this Court such as, say, Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, supra (the Act covers undocumented aliens), where the Court wrote that the “breadth of §2(3)’s definition is striking: the Act squarely applies to 'any employee.’” 467 U. S., at 891. See NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U. S. 170 , 189-190 (1981) (certain “confidential employees” fall within the definition of “employees”); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S., at 185-186 (job applicants are “employees”). Cf. Chemical Workers v.

Finally, at least one other provision of the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act seems specifically to contemplate the possibility that a company’s employee might also work for a union. This provision forbids an employer (say, the company) to make payments to a person employed by a union, but simultaneously exempts from that ban wages paid by the company to “any ... employee of a labor organization, who is also an employee” of the company. 29 U. S. C. § 186 (c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). If Town & Country is right, there would not seem to be many (or any) human beings to which this last phrase could apply.

Ill

Town & Country believes that it can overcome these general considerations, favoring a broad, literal interpretation of the Act, through an argument that rests primarily upon the common law of agency. It first argues that our prior decisions resort to common-law principles in defining the term “employee.” See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U. S. 318 , 323 (1992) (using common-law test to distinguish between “employee” and “independent contractor” under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq.); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U. S. 730 , 739-740 (1989) (using common-law test to distinguish between “employee” and “independent contractor” under Copyright Act of 1976, 17

Town & Country goes on to argue that application of common-law agency principles requires an interpretation of “employee” that excludes paid union organizers. It points to a section of the Restatement (Second) of Agency (dealing with respondeat superior liability for torts), which says:

“Since ... the relation of master and servant is dependent upon the right of the master to control the conduct of the servant in the performance of the service, giving service to two masters at the same time normally involves a breach of duty by the servant to one or both of them .... [A person] cannot be a servant of two masters in doing an act as to which an intent to serve one necessarily excludes an intent to serve the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency §226, Comment a, p. 499 (1957).

It argues that, when the paid union organizer serves the union — at least at certain times in certain ways — the organizer is acting adversely to the company. Indeed, it says, the organizer may stand ready to desert the company upon request by the union, in which case, the union, not the company, would have “the right... to control the conduct of the servant.” Ibid. Thus, it concludes, the worker must be the servant (i. e., the “employee”) of the union alone. See id., § 1, and Comment a, p. 8 (“agent” is one who agrees to act “subject to [a principal’s] control”).

As Town & Country correctly notes, in the context of reviewing lower courts’ interpretations of statutory terms, we

Town & Country’s common-law argument fails, quite simply, because, in our view, the Board correctly found that it lacks sufficient support in common law. The Restatement’s hornbook rule (to which the quoted commentary is appended) says that a

“person may be the servant of two masters ... at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve

abandonment of the service to the other.” Restatement (Second) of Agency §226, at 498 (emphasis added).

The Board, in quoting this rule, concluded that service to the union for pay does not “involve abandonment of... service” to the company. 309 N. L. R. B., at 1254 .

And, that conclusion seems correct. Common sense suggests that as a worker goes about his or her ordinary tasks during a working day, say, wiring sockets or laying cable, he or she is subject to the control of the company employer, whether or not the union also pays the worker. The company, the worker, the union, all would expect that to be so. And, that being so, that union and company interests or control might sometimes differ should make no difference. As Prof. Seavey pointed out many years ago, “[o]ne can be a servant of one person for some acts and the servant of another person for other acts, even when done at the same time,” for example, where “a city detective, in search of clues, finds employment as a waiter and, while serving the meals, searches the customer’s pockets.” W. Seavey, Handbook of the Law of Agency § 85, p. 146 (1964). The detective is the servant both “of the restaurateur” (as to the table waiting) and “of the city” (as to the pocket searching). Ibid. How does it differ from Prof. Seavey’s example for the company to pay the worker for electrical work, and the union to pay him for organizing? Moreover, union organizers may limit their organizing to nonwork hours. See, e. g., Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793 (1945); Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U. S. 483 , 492-493 (1978). If so, union organizing, when done for pay but during nonwork hours, would seem equivalent to simple moonlighting, a practice wholly consistent with a company’s control over its workers as to their assigned duties.

Town & Country’s “abandonment” argument is yet weaker insofar as the activity that constitutes an “abandonment,” i. e., ordinary union organizing activity, is itself specifically protected by the Act. See, e. g., ibid, (employer restrictions

Neither are we convinced by the practical considerations that Town & Country adds to its agency law argument. The company refers to a Union resolution permitting members to work for nonunion firms, which, the company says, reflects a union effort to “salt” nonunion companies with union members seeking to organize them. Supported by amici curiae, it argues that “salts” might try to harm the company, perhaps quitting when the company needs them, perhaps disparaging the company to others, perhaps even sabotaging the firm or its products. Therefore, the company concludes, Congress could not have meant paid union organizers to have been included as “employees” under the Act.

This practical argument suffers from several serious problems. For one thing, nothing in this record suggests that such acts of disloyalty were present, in kind or degree, to the point where the company might lose control over the worker’s normal workplace tasks. Certainly the Union’s resolution contains nothing that suggests, requires, encourages, or condones impermissible or unlawful activity. App. 256-258. For another thing, the argument proves too much. If a paid union organizer might quit, leaving a company employer in the lurch, so too might an unpaid organizer, or a worker who has found a better job, or one whose family wants to move elsewhere. And if an overly zealous union organizer might hurt the company through unlawful acts, so might another unpaid zealot (who may know less about the law), or a dissatisfied worker (who may lack an outlet for his or her grievances). This does not mean they are not “employees.”

Further, the law offers alternative remedies for Town & Country’s concerns, short of excluding paid or unpaid union

This is not to say that the law treats paid union organizers like other company employees in every labor law context. For instance, the Board states that, at least sometimes, a paid organizer may not share a sufficient “community of interest” with other employees (as to wages, hours, and working conditions) to warrant inclusion in the same bargaining unit. Brief for National Labor Relations Board 33, n. 14. See, e. g., NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp., 454 U. S., at 190 (some confidential workers, although “employees,” may be excluded from bargaining unit). We need not decide this matter. Nor do we express any view about any of the other matters Town & Country raised before the Court of Appeals, such as whether or not Town & Country’s conduct (in refusing to interview, or to retain, “employees” who were on the union’s payroll) amounted to an

For these reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.