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

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)

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)

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