Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawLabor LawNational Labor Relations ActAgency factfindingSubstantial evidence reviewNLRBsuccessor employerunion majority support

Facts

Allentown purchased Mack Trucks' Allentown branch and hired 32 of the original 45 employees, making it a successor employer subject to a presumption of continuing union majority support. Before and just after the sale, several employees made statements to Allentown managers suggesting loss of support for the incumbent union, including personal anti-union statements and statements by two employees about broader workforce opposition. When the union requested recognition, Allentown refused, asserting a good-faith doubt about the union's support, and conducted a secret-ballot poll supervised by a priest, which the union lost 19 to 13. The Board nevertheless held the poll unlawful because Allentown allegedly lacked an objective reasonable doubt of the union's majority status.

Issue

Whether the NLRB's requirement that an employer have a good-faith reasonable doubt before conducting an internal poll is rational and consistent with the National Labor Relations Act, and whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Allentown lacked such a doubt. Also, whether the Board may effectively apply a stricter standard in practice than the one it formally announces.

Rule

The Board's polling standard is valid if it is rational and consistent with the Act. In reviewing Board factfinding, courts ask whether a reasonable factfinder could have reached the Board's conclusion on the record as a whole; under the Board's announced standard, the question here is whether the employer lacked a genuine, reasonable uncertainty about the union's majority support based on objective considerations. The Board must actually apply the legal standards it announces, and may not by systematic factfinding effectively substitute a different, higher evidentiary standard while still reciting 'good-faith reasonable doubt' and 'preponderance of the evidence.'

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue River Equipment bought a repair facility in Columbus, Ohio, and hired most of the predecessor's mechanics, whose incumbent union claimed continued majority support. The labor board uses one standard for an employer's internal poll, a request for a board-run election, and withdrawal of recognition: the employer must have a good-faith reasonable doubt about majority support before taking any of those steps.

If the employer argues that the poll standard is invalid on its face because a poll is pointless unless the employer already has enough evidence to act without it, how should a reviewing court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a unitary standard for polls, RM elections, and withdrawal of recognition is facially rational and consistent with the Act if the board could reasonably view polling as disruptive and choose to confine it to situations where the employer might otherwise withdraw recognition. The fact that the policy is puzzling or may reduce the utility of polling does not make it arbitrary or capricious.