Linden Lumber Division v. NLRB

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Labor Law

419 U.S. 301 (1974)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawrecognition without electionauthorization cardsBoard electionunion recognitionsection 8(a)(5)section 9(a)section 9(c)(1)(B)

Facts

In Linden, the union obtained authorization cards from a majority of the employer's employees and demanded recognition as their bargaining representative. Linden refused recognition, stated that it doubted the union's majority status, suggested that the union petition for a Board election, and later again refused recognition after the union withdrew its election petition when Linden would not enter a consent election agreement or abide by an election because of alleged supervisory assistance in the campaign. The union then struck for recognition and filed an unfair labor practice charge based on Linden's refusal to bargain. There was no charge that Linden committed any unfair labor practice apart from the refusal to bargain, and in Wilder the Board made the same ruling under similar circumstances.

Issue

When a union presents authorization cards showing apparent majority support and the employer refuses recognition without having committed unfair labor practices that impair the election process, must the employer petition for a Board election to avoid a bargaining obligation, or does the union bear the burden of invoking the Board's election procedure?

Rule

Unless an employer has engaged in an unfair labor practice that impairs the electoral process, a union with authorization cards purporting to represent a majority of the employees, when refused recognition, has the burden of taking the next step by invoking the Board's election procedure. An employer is not guilty of a section 8(a)(5) violation solely because it refuses to accept evidence of majority status other than the results of a Board election.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, the Warehouse Employees Guild obtained signed authorization cards from 34 of 60 drivers at Riverbend Freight Systems and demanded recognition. Riverbend replied that it would not recognize the union unless it won a Board-conducted election, and no other unfair labor practice is alleged.

If the union files a charge alleging the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) solely by refusing to bargain on the basis of the cards, how should the claim be resolved?

Explanation. The majority held that, unless the employer has engaged in an unfair labor practice impairing the electoral process, refusal to accept evidence of majority status other than the results of a Board election does not by itself violate Section 8(a)(5). The Court also approved the Board's refusal to make the case turn on the employer's reasons or subjective doubt.