1. Why did the employers rather than Schoux and Choate file the Section 8(b)(1)(B) unfair labor practice charges?
2. When is discipline of a supervisor-member prohibited under Section 8(b)(1)(B)?
3. Were Schoux and Choate Section 8(b)(1)(B) supervisors?
4. Why was Section 8(b)(1)(B) made a part of the NLRA?

[Albert Schoux worked as a supervisor for Royal Electric Company, and Ted Choate worked as a supervisor for Nutter Electric Company. Both were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and neither of their employers had collective bargaining agreements with the IBEW. The union found that both individuals had violated the union's constitution by working for employers who did not have contracts with the union and fined Schoux $8,200 and Choate $6,000. The employers filed Section 8(b)(1)(B) unfair labor charges. The Board entered an order against the union, but the court of appeals refused to enforce the order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.]
BRENNAN, J.…
I.
The question for decision is whether a union "restrain[s] or coerce[s] … an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances," 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b)(1)(B), when it disciplines a supervisor union member who does not participate in collective bargaining or adjust contractual grievances, and whose employer has not entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union.
II.
The structure of the NLRA reveals that in § 8(b)(1)(B) Congress addressed "a separate and far more limited problem than that of conflict of loyalties." Florida Power, 417 U.S., at 811, n. 21. One need only compare the scope of § 8(b)(1)(B) with that of other sections of the Act: § 8(b)(1)(B) covers only individuals selected as the employer's representatives "for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances," while the total class of supervisors "is defined by § 2(11) to include individuals engaged in a substantially broader range of activities." 417 U.S., at 811, n. 21….
We conclude that the union discipline at issue was not an unfair labor practice. Although both Schoux and Choate were supervisors within the meaning of § 2(11), neither had grievance adjustment or collective bargaining responsibilities protected by § 8(b)(1)(B). The possibility that a § 2(11) supervisor might someday perform § 8(b)(1)(B) functions and that past discipline might then have an adverse effect on the performance of such duties is simply too speculative to support a finding that an employer has been "restrained] or coerce[d]" "in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bar gaining or the adjustment of grievances."
III.
The Court of Appeals found, as a matter of law, that the Union did not have a collective bargaining relationship with Royal or Nutter, and that it did not seek to represent their employees in the future. It held that such a finding precluded union liability for violation of § 8(b)(1)(B). The NLRB argues, however, that even under these circumstances, the Union's enforcement of its no-contract-no-work rule against its supervisor-members would restrain or coerce Royal and Nutter by affecting the way in which the supervisor-members performed their § 8(b)(1)(B) tasks and by restricting the selection of § 8(b)(1)(B) representatives…. [W]e find that the absence of a collective bargaining relationship between the union and the employer, like the absence of § 8(b)(1)(B) responsibilities in a disciplined supervisor-member, makes the possibility that the Union's discipline of Schoux and Choate will coerce Royal and Nutter too attenuated to form the basis of an unfair labor practice charge….