Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB

Last updated
Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 14, 1938
Decided January 3, 1939
Full case nameFord Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Citations305 U.S. 364 ( more )
59 S. Ct. 301; 83 L. Ed. 221; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1104
Case history
Prior99 F.2d 1003 (6th Cir. 1938); cert. granted, 305 U.S. 585(1938).
SubsequentRemanded, 101 F.2d 1010 (6th Cir. 1939).
Holding
Right to withdraw petition for enforcement and to withdraw transcripts from record lies within discretion of the court of appeals not the appealing agency, and documents may be retained by court of appeals even after granting permission to withdraw.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed
Case opinion
MajorityHughes, joined by unanimous
Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364 (1939), is an 8-to-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that an administrative agency of the United States government, seeking enforcement of its orders, cannot withdraw its petition or the transcript of the administrative hearing once these have been submitted to the appropriate court. [1] Whether the agency should be permitted to withdraw its petition is a decision for the court of appeals, the Supreme Court said.

Contents

Facts

After the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found itself attempting to enforce the law against hundreds of employers, most of whom refused to acknowledge the constitutionality of the NLRA or obey the Board's orders. The Board's practice was to have its Economic Division study the issues and report to the Board; order its attorneys in its Review Division to analyze the case and report to the Board; review the transcripts of the field office trial de novo; receive an oral report about the case from the trial examiner; and have the Chief Counsel's staff prepare a draft decision for Board consideration. [2] But in Morgan v. United States , 298 U.S. 468 (1936) and Morgan v. United States , 304 U.S. 1 (1938), the Supreme Court held that parties in quasi-judicial hearings before the government had the right to be presented with the issues the government was considering, present the agency with a statement, review the proposed findings, review any tentative reports, and submit exceptions and argument to the agency before a final determination is made. [3]

The NLRB had ruled against the Ford Motor Company in a case involving strikebreakers. The agency had asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to enforce its order, and had already submitted its trial transcripts and decision to the court. But now the NLRB worried that it might be found in violation of the Morgan rulings, which had come down after its submission to the court of appeals. The NLRB attempted to withdraw its transcripts, but the appellate court refused to turn them over.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held, first, that any decision to allow the agency to withdraw its petition was solely up to the discretion of the court. [4] Second, the Court held that even if the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn, the court still was within its rights to retain the transcripts. [5] Third, the Supreme Court held that the court of appeals had properly permitted the NLRB to withdraw its petition for enforcement so that proceedings could be properly conducted under the Morgan rules, but that the court of appeals still retained the authority to rule on any new petition (for enforcement or dismissal). [6] Fourth, the court of appeals correctly held that it did not have to rule on all the aspects of the case, since the petition for enforcement was being withdrawn for further proceedings. [7]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364 (1939).
  2. ↑ Gross, p. 31-32.
  3. ↑ Gross, p. 30.
  4. ↑ Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. at 368.
  5. ↑ Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. at 370.
  6. ↑ Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. at 372.
  7. ↑ Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. at 372-375.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Board</span> U.S. Federal Government agency responsible for enforcing certain labor laws

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States with responsibilities for enforcing U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 it supervises elections for labor union representation and can investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity. The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed to five-year terms and the General Counsel is appointed to a four-year term. The General Counsel acts as a prosecutor and the Board acts as an appellate quasi-judicial body from decisions of administrative law judges.

In labor law, a union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time. Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), is a US labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States on union rights and private property rights. It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property unless no reasonable alternatives exist.

NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111 (1944), was an administrative law case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case concerned the meaning of the term "employees" in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It held that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449, 353 U.S. 87 (1957), is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Warren Madden</span> American judge

Joseph Warren Madden was an American lawyer, judge, civil servant, and educator. He served as a judge of the United States Court of Claims and was the first Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. He received the Medal of Freedom in 1947.

New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot make decisions without at least three members on a panel.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240 (1939), is a United States Supreme Court case on labor laws in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Board had no authority to order an employer to reinstate workers fired after a sit-down strike, even if the employer's illegal actions triggered that strike.

In re Labor Board, 304 U.S. 486 (1938), is a 5-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the National Labor Relations Act requires the filing of a petition and a transcript in order for an enforcement order to proceed in federal court, and that a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are appropriate measures to take in quashing a petition when no transcript has been filed.

NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a US labor law case where the US Supreme Court held 5-to-2 that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332 (1939), is United States labor law case, decided by a majority of 5 to 2 by the Supreme Court of the United States, which overturned a decision by the National Labor Relations Board because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court defined collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act to mean that proposals and responses to proposals were pending, and that future meetings were being planned. Absent such conditions, bargaining was not occurring. The Court also held that an employer did not violate the Act if it chose to deal with the employees on an individual basis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry A. Millis</span> American economist

Harry Alvin Millis was an American civil servant, economist, and educator and who was prominent in the first four decades of the 20th century. He was a prominent educator, and his writings on labor relations were described at his death by several prominent economists as "landmarks". Millis is best known for serving on the "first" National Labor Relations Board, an executive-branch agency which had no statutory authority. He was also the second chairman of the "second" National Labor Relations Board, where he initiated a number of procedural improvements and helped stabilize the Board's enforcement of American labor law.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on how two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration. The Supreme Court had consolidated three cases, Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris (16-300), and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (16-307). In a 5–4 decision issued in May 2018, the Court ruled that arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and prohibiting class action lawsuits are enforceable under the FAA, regardless of allowances set out within the NLRA.

NLRB v Erie Resistor Corp373 US 221 (1963) is a US labor law case, concerning the right to organize.

Emporium Capwell v. Western Addition, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case. The court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) is a US labor law case that resulted in a split decision before the US Supreme Court. By a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that undocumented immigrant workers were “employees” covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, by a 5-4 majority the Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was limited in its remedies for penalizing employers who fired undocumented workers for union organizing in violation of the NLRA. The decision was one of a series limiting the rights of immigrant workers and the power of the NLRB culminating with Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.