NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Labor Law

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesEmployer Discrimination Against StrikersNLRASection 8(a)(3)Section 8(a)(1)antiunion motivation

Facts

Great Dane and the union had a collective bargaining agreement that provided vacation benefits to employees who met specified hour requirements, with payment due near July 1. After the agreement was temporarily extended and bargaining failed, about 350 of 400 employees began a strike on May 16, 1963, while the company continued operating with nonstrikers, replacements, and some returning strikers. When strikers demanded accrued vacation pay in July, the company refused, asserting that the strike had terminated all contractual obligations, but then announced it would pay vacation benefits in the amounts and under the conditions of the expired agreement to employees who had reported for work on July 1. Thus, employees who met the eligibility conditions but were on strike were denied benefits, while nonstrikers, replacements, and returning strikers who worked on that date were paid.

Issue

Whether an employer may be found to violate §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA, without proof of antiunion motivation, when it discriminates against strikers in paying vacation benefits and offers no evidence of legitimate business justification for that discrimination.

Rule

When the employer has engaged in discriminatory conduct that could adversely affect employee rights, the employer bears the burden of coming forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications. If the conduct is inherently destructive of important employee rights, no proof of antiunion motivation is needed. If the harm to employee rights is comparatively slight, antiunion motivation must be proved only if the employer has come forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications.

🔒

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.

Red Mesa Packaging, a manufacturer in Albuquerque, had a yearly attendance bonus for employees who met a minimum-hours requirement before a lawful strike began. When bonus time arrived during the strike, the company paid all eligible nonstrikers and employees who had returned to work, but denied payment to eligible employees still on strike. At the hearing, Red Mesa offered no evidence explaining the distinction.

Under the governing rule, what is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. Once discriminatory conduct that could adversely affect employee rights is proved, the employer bears the burden of coming forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications. Where the employer offers none, the Board need not separately prove antiunion motivation. Paying accrued benefits to one group while denying the same benefits to otherwise eligible strikers is conduct capable of discouraging protected concerted activity.