National Labor Relations Board v. Scrivener

Background

Robert Scrivener is a small electrical contractor who ran AA Electric Company in Springfield, Missouri. Five of his six employees signed union cards. After the union filed charges, a Board field examiner took sworn statements from four employees. When those four were later fired, the union amended its charge to allege retaliation. The National Labor Relations Board found the employer unlawfully discharged the employees and ordered reinstatement, back pay, and notices. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Section 8(a)(4) did not protect statements given to a field examiner.

Reasoning

The central question was whether firing workers for giving written sworn statements to a Board field examiner violates Section 8(a)(4). The Court held that it does. The opinion explains that Congress intended broad protection so people can safely report unfair labor practices. The Court relied on the statute’s wording, past Board practice, and practical concerns that protecting only formal filings or hearings would undermine investigations. The Court therefore reversed the appeals court and found the discharge unlawful under Section 8(a)(4), but it did not rule on whether other sections also applied.

Real world impact

Workers who give information to Board investigators are protected from employer retaliation. The Board’s remedy of reinstatement and back pay can stand when discharges are found retaliatory. Some ancillary issues, such as jurisdictional questions and other claims, were left open for the lower courts to address on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes that three Justices concurred in the result and joined Part III of the plurality opinion.