NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawAgency RulemakingAgency AdjudicationLabor LawSubpoena PowerAPArulemakingadjudication

Facts

Pursuant to § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRB ordered an election among Wyman-Gordon's production and maintenance employees and directed the company to furnish a list of eligible voters' names and addresses for union use in the election. Wyman-Gordon refused, the election proceeded without the list, and both unions lost. The Board sustained objections to the election, ordered a new election, and again directed the company to supply the list. After a second refusal, the Board issued a subpoena requiring production of the list or personnel and payroll records showing employee names and addresses.

Issue

Whether the Board could enforce against Wyman-Gordon a direction to furnish employee names and addresses when the general Excelsior disclosure requirement had been announced without compliance with APA rulemaking procedures. The Court also considered whether the disclosure requirement was substantively valid and whether the Board could compel production by subpoena under § 11 of the NLRA.

Rule

APA rulemaking requirements for rules of general future effect may not be avoided by announcing such rules in adjudicatory proceedings. However, the NLRB may, in an adjudicatory proceeding, issue a valid case-specific order directing an employer to furnish an employee list in connection with a representation election, and the Board may enforce that order by subpoena because such a list is "evidence" within § 11 of the NLRA. The disclosure requirement is substantively valid as a means of promoting fair and informed employee choice in representation elections.

🔒

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 Seattle, the Federal Workplace Elections Board resolved a dispute involving one warehouse and announced in its written decision that, in all future representation elections, every employer must provide unions with employees' personal email addresses. The board had invited only a few trade groups to submit briefs and did not publish notice, provide general public participation, or publish the rule in the Federal Register.

If a court follows the majority's reasoning, what is the strongest conclusion about the board's announced requirement?

Explanation. The majority drew a line between agency precedent developed in adjudication and a binding rule of general future effect. When an agency purports to establish a generally applicable prospective rule, it must use APA rulemaking procedures; it may not evade them by embedding the rule in an adjudicatory decision. Limited briefing by selected groups is not a substitute for notice, participation, statement of basis and purpose, and publication required for rulemaking.