NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Administrative Law

416 U.S. 267 (1974)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawrulemaking vs. adjudicationNLRBNLRAmanagerial employeesrulemakingadjudicationagency discretion

Facts

Bell Aerospace operated a plant in New York, and a union petitioned for a representation election among 25 buyers in the company's purchasing and procurement department. The company opposed the petition, arguing the buyers were managerial employees and therefore not covered by the NLRA. The buyers had substantial discretion to select vendors, solicit and evaluate bids, negotiate price and terms, and prepare purchase orders, with authority to execute purchase orders up to $50,000 and to place or cancel smaller orders on their own signature. The Board held that even if the buyers were managerial employees they were covered by the Act unless union membership created a conflict of interest in labor relations, certified the union, and later ordered the company to bargain.

Issue

Does the NLRA exclude all managerial employees from its protections, or only those whose union participation would create a conflict of interest in labor relations? If the Board on remand concludes that certain buyers are not managerial employees, must it reach that conclusion through rulemaking rather than adjudication?

Rule

Managerial employees are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act. The Board is not required to proceed by rulemaking rather than adjudication when determining whether particular employees, such as buyers, are managerial; the choice between rulemaking and adjudication lies primarily within the agency's informed discretion, though reliance on adjudication could in some situations be an abuse of discretion or violate the Act.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Orion Valve Works employs contract analysts who do not supervise anyone. But they choose outside suppliers, negotiate prices and delivery terms, and may bind the company on purchase agreements up to $200,000 without prior approval. A union petitions to represent them, arguing they should be covered because they play no role in labor relations.

Which is the best analysis of whether the analysts are covered by the Act?

Explanation. The governing rule is that all properly classified managerial employees are outside the Act, not merely those whose union activity would create a conflict in labor relations. The inquiry focuses on actual responsibilities, authority, and relationship to management, not on supervisory status alone or on whether a labor-relations conflict is shown.