Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: Detroit Edison Company
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: C and P Telephone Baltimore Headquarters

DOCKET NO.: 77-968
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

CITATION: 440 US 301 (1979)
ARGUED: Nov 06, 1978
DECIDED: Mar 05, 1979

ADVOCATES:
John A. McGuinn - for petitioner
Norton J. Come - for respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 06, 1978 in Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - March 05, 1979 in Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in No. 968, Detroit Edison Company against the National Labor Relations Board will be announced by Mr. Justice Stewart.

Potter Stewart:

This case is here by reason of the grant of a writ of certiorari to United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The duty to bargain collectively imposed upon an employer by Section 8 (a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act includes a duty to provide relevant information needed by a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the employees bargaining representative.

This is apparently the first case in which the Board has held that an employer's duty to provide relevant information to the employee's bargaining representative includes the duty to disclose directly to a union tests and test scores achieved by named employees in a statistically validated psychological aptitude testing program administered by the employer.

Psychological aptitude testing is a widely used employee selection and promotion device in both private industry and government. Test secrecy is concededly critical to the validity of any such program, and confidentiality of scores is undeniably important to the examinees.

The underlying question in this case is whether the Board's order enforced without modification by the Court of Appeals adequately accommodated these concerns.

For the reasons stated in the written opinion of the Court filed with the clerk this morning, we hold that the Board's order did not adequately accommodate these interests.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice White has filed a dissenting opinion which Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall have joined.

And Mr. Justice Stevens has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Mr. Justice Stewart.