Alcoa, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3226
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alcoa acquired TRACO (a window manufacturer) in 2010; TRACO became part of Alcoa’s Building and Construction Systems business unit. TRACO remained a separate corporate entity but used Alcoa branding and materials.
- After the acquisition TRACO employees sought union representation; Union organizers attempted to handbill outside the TRACO facility during a shift change in September 2011.
- An Alcoa industrial-relations director (O’Brien) told the Union that non-TRACO employees could not enter TRACO property; TRACO management then denied entry to off-duty Alcoa employees and a TRACO manager (Jost) positioned himself near handbillers.
- The NLRB alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1): (1) denying Alcoa employees access to TRACO for handbilling, (2) unlawful surveillance of handbillers, and (3) an overly broad solicitation policy (the last claim was dismissed below and is not on appeal).
- The ALJ found Alcoa and TRACO to be a single employer and that the Companies violated Section 8(a)(1) by excluding Alcoa employees and by unlawfully surveilling handbillers; the NLRB adopted the ALJ’s recommended order.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed enforcement: substantial evidence supports single-employer status (common ownership, interrelation of operations, centralized labor-policy control), and it is reasonable to apply the single-employer doctrine to Section 8(a)(1) liability; the exclusion and surveillance findings were enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alcoa and TRACO are a single employer under the NLRA | NLRB: common ownership, interrelated operations (branding, shared services, non-arm’s-length transactions), and centralized control of labor policy support single-employer status | Companies: TRACO is a separate day-to-day managed subsidiary; Alcoa lacks day-to-day control so single-employer finding is improper | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports single-employer finding (common ownership, interrelation, centralized labor-policy control) |
| Whether the single-employer doctrine can be applied to Section 8(a)(1) access claims | NLRB: applying the doctrine is consistent with Act’s purpose—employees at related entities may act collectively against the common source of labor policy | Companies: single-employer doctrine should not extend to Section 8(a)(1) access rights | Affirmed: application to Section 8(a)(1) is reasonable and consistent with the Act |
| Whether excluding Alcoa employees from TRACO exterior areas for handbilling violated Section 8(a)(1) | NLRB: off-duty employees may engage in Section 7 activity in employer facilities’ nonworking areas; exclusion unreasonably restricted protected activity | Companies: property/security/managerial interests justify limiting access | Enforced: Board’s finding of violation was not challenged on the merits by Companies and is summarily enforced |
| Whether positioning a manager to observe which employees accepted handbills constituted unlawful surveillance | NLRB: Jost’s acts were out-of-the-ordinary observation constituting unlawful surveillance | Companies: (did not contest this finding on appeal) | Enforced: Board’s surveillance finding upheld and enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (recognizes NLRB’s primary role in applying the NLRA)
- Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (employees may engage in protected organizing during nonworking time)
- Curtin Matheson Sci., Inc. v. NLRB, 494 U.S. 775 (Board decisions given considerable deference on national labor policy)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (substantial evidence standard for reviewing Board fact findings)
- S. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Local No. 627, 425 U.S. 800 (single-employer/integrated-enterprise concept)
- Radio & Television Broad. Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broad. Serv. of Mobile Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (single-employer factors)
- Trencor, Inc. v. NLRB, 110 F.3d 268 (5th Cir.) (deference to Board policy determinations; consistency with Act test)
- ITT Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 413 F.3d 64 (D.C. Cir.) (discusses off-duty employee access and balancing employer property interests)
- NLRB v. Aero Corp., 581 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.) (supervisor observation of union activity can be unlawful surveillance)