Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

1979-03-05

Headline: Workplace aptitude-testing dispute: Court blocks order forcing company to hand test questions and answer sheets directly to union, and allows withholding employees’ identified scores without consent.

Holding: The Court held that the Board abused its remedial discretion by ordering the employer to give the test questions and answer sheets directly to the union, and that the employer may withhold named employees’ scores without their consent.

Real World Impact:

Limits unions’ direct access to employers’ confidential test banks.
Allows employers to require employee consent before sharing identified test scores.
Changes how promotions, grievances, and testing secrecy are handled between employers and unions.

Topics: workplace testing, union access to information, employee privacy, labor-management disputes

Summary

Background

A utility company used a validated set of aptitude tests to screen applicants for a skilled job. A union representing plant employees grieved after several unit members failed the tests and were passed over. The union asked for the test battery, the employees’ answer sheets, and the scores tied to names to prepare for arbitration. The National Labor Relations Board ordered the company to turn all materials over directly to the union; a federal appeals court enforced that order.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether that remedy properly balanced test secrecy, employee privacy, and the union’s need for information. The Court found the Board’s order requiring direct delivery of questions and answer sheets to the union gave too little protection against leaks and abused the Board’s remedial discretion. Separately, the Court held that the company did not violate its duty by offering to disclose identified scores only if the individual employees consented, because employee privacy interests and confidentiality commitments were significant.

Real world impact

The ruling limits when and how unions can get employers’ raw test materials and makes clear employers may condition release of named test scores on employee consent. The decision was not unanimous: one Justice would have sustained the Board’s full remedy, and another joined parts of both opinions.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued for strong deference to the Board’s choice of remedy and full union access; a partial concurrence agreed with denying unconsented score disclosure but would defer to the Board on question disclosure.