Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co.

Background

A local textile company closed its mill after workers narrowly voted for union representation. The mill was tied by ownership and marketing arrangements to a larger family-controlled textile enterprise. The union complained to the National Labor Relations Board, which found the closing motivated by anti-union animus, treated the mill as part of a single integrated employer group, and ordered back pay and bargaining. The Court of Appeals set the Board’s order aside, and the case was taken up for review here.

Reasoning

The main question was whether an employer may lawfully end its whole business for anti-union reasons and whether a partial closing can be illegal when related businesses exist. The Court held that a complete, bona fide liquidation of an entire business is not an unfair labor practice even if motivated by hostility to the union. But the Court also held that closing only one plant can be unlawful if those who control the closed plant have substantial interests in other businesses, act with the purpose of discouraging unionism there, and it is reasonably foreseeable the closure will chill union activity in those other plants. The Court found the Board had not made the necessary findings about purpose and effect on the other plants and therefore sent the case back for further fact-finding.

Real world impact

Workers at a wholly terminated business will generally not be protected by the Act against that final shutdown, while employees in related companies may gain protection if a partial closing was meant to intimidate them. The case was remanded, so final relief and detailed remedies depend on further findings and later review.