1. Electromation
Board cannot consider “changing industrial realities” in interpreting NLRA where
statute is clear to the contrary of requested interpretation; or
Supreme Court has decreed a particular interp.
EPP a “labor organization” if
there is employee participation
“deals with” employer
includes conduct broader than “bargaining”
bilateral mechanism
dealings involve TCE

2. Electromation (cont.)
8(a)(2) issue: Board need not find that employees view themselves as “dominated”
key is the purpose of the EPP
employees may not be aware they are “dominated”
impossible for Board to probe each employee’s mind to learn if he/she perceives him/herself to be “dominated”
Legislative History: Congress did not include in T-H a provision which would have modified 8(a)(2)

3. Electromation (cont.) Application of law to facts in Electromation
Employer dominated the action committees
proposed them
imposed them on ees despite initial ee reluctance
determined size, structure, agenda, procedures, purposes, one committee per ee limit, committee placement of ees, mgmt. reps on committee, paid ees for time spent on committee activities
Committees were labor organizations
ees participated in them
“dealt with” employer
dealings involved TCE (pay, absence policies, smoking)

4. Teamwork For Employees and Managers Act of 1996
Amend 8(a)(2) as follows: “. . . it shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice for an employer to establish, assist , maintain, or participate in any organization of any kind, in which employees participate, to address matters of mutual interest, including issues of quality, productivity, and efficiency, and which does not claim, or seek authority to negotiate or enter into collective bargaining agreements with the employer or to amend existing collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any labor organization.”
Passed by Congress, Vetoed by President, August, 1996