Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Labor Law

420 U.S. 50 (1975)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawminority group bargainingNLRASection 7Section 9(a)exclusive representationcollective bargainingminority employees

Facts

Emporium Capwell was party to a collective-bargaining agreement with a union that was the exclusive representative of the relevant employees, and the agreement prohibited discrimination and provided grievance-arbitration procedures. A group of minority employees complained to the union about alleged racial discrimination in assignments and promotions, and the union investigated, formally charged the company, and sought to pursue the matter through the contractual process. Dissatisfied, Hollins, Hawkins, and others refused to participate in the grievance proceeding, demanded to negotiate directly with the company president about minority employment conditions, held a press conference, picketed the store, and urged a boycott. After warnings, Hollins and Hawkins repeated the conduct and were discharged.

Issue

Does NLRA § 7 protect concerted activity by minority employees who bypass their exclusive bargaining representative and attempt to bargain directly with their employer over alleged racial discrimination in terms and conditions of employment? More specifically, may such employees invoke national policy against discrimination to escape the exclusivity principle of § 9(a)?

Rule

Where employees are represented by an exclusive bargaining representative, § 7 does not protect a subgroup of employees in bypassing that representative to bargain separately with the employer over terms and conditions of employment, even when the subject is alleged racial discrimination. The § 9(a) grievance proviso permits presentation of grievances without exposing the employer to direct-dealing liability, but it does not create protected rights to compel employer consideration or authorize economic coercion outside the exclusive-bargaining framework.

🔒

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.

At a unionized warehouse in Cleveland, a group of Somali-American employees believes they are being denied overtime opportunities because of ethnicity. The collective-bargaining agreement bars discrimination and contains a grievance-arbitration process, and the union has already filed a grievance. Dissatisfied, the group demands that the company vice president meet with them alone to negotiate a new overtime allocation plan for Muslim and Somali workers, and they begin picketing to force that meeting.

If the employer discharges the picketing employees, are their discharges most likely unlawful under NLRA § 8(a)(1) because the employees were engaged in protected § 7 activity?

Explanation. The majority held that where a union is the exclusive representative, a subgroup of employees may not bypass the union and bargain separately with the employer over employment conditions, even when the subject is alleged discrimination. The key question is whether the conduct is separate bargaining rather than mere grievance presentation. Here, the employees demanded direct negotiations over overtime terms and used picketing to compel that bargaining, so the activity is not protected under § 7.