Polaroid Corporation announced the formation of an Employee-Owners Influence Council (EOIC) in January 1993 and invited all 8,000 employees to apply to serve on the committee. Some 150 employees applied, and the company interviewed and selected 30 employees. The company provided the facilities for the EOIC and paid all expenses to serve three-, four-, or five-year terms.
A Polaroid organizational specialist conducted each meeting where management made proposals to the group on such topics as family and medical leave, a termination policy, medical benefits, and an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Polaroid consistently polled or otherwise questioned the group to determine the majority view of the group on the topic discussed, and this view then effectively constituted the proposal of the EOIC, to which Polaroid thereafter responded by word or deed.
For example, Polaroid's chief executive officer Booth stated to the EOIC at the October 20 meeting that he would come back and discuss solutions with employees, and in fact he did come back to the EOIC with a decision. In internal publications to its workforce, Polaroid repeatedly emphasized the significant input of the EOIC on the decisions made by management. Polaroid encouraged EOIC members to communicate with other employees about issues and to report back to the EOIC the views of these employees. Mr. Booth encouraged EOIC members to tell him what other employees were expressing.
Did the employer violate Section 8(a)(2) by creating a labor organization under Section 2(5) in setting up and implementing EOIC?
Or was the employer entitled to exercise its First Amendment and basic managerial rights to conduct brainstorming sessions with its employees? Decide.
[Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB 424]