NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago | |
---|---|
Argued October 30, 1978 Decided Mar 21, 1979 | |
Full case name | National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago et al. |
Citations | 440 U.S. 490 ( more ) 99 S. Ct. 1313; 59 L. Ed. 2d 533; |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of the regulations, 559 F. 2d 1112. cert. granted, 434 U.S. 1061(1978). |
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
The National Labor Relations Board does not have the power under the Wagner Act to regulate parochial religious schools. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Burger, joined by Stewart, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Blackmun |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I; Public Law 74-198, 49 Stat. 449 (Wagner Act) |
National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that ruled that the National Labor Relations Board did not have the authority to regulate religious schools. The court ruled that the Wagner Act did not grant the board authority over religious schools and that even if it did, that would cause an unconstitutional intrusion of the federal government into religion. [1] [2]
This case serves as one of the foundational pillars of the ministerial exception doctrine.
In 1974 and 1975, union organizations filed petitions with the National Labor Relations Board seeking to unionize lay teachers from seven Midwestern Catholic schools, two that were directly operated by the Archbishop of Chicago and five that were under the Diocese of Fort Wayne-Southbend's jurisdiction.
The schools rejected unionization attempts on the grounds that the board did not possess such authority, and that the free exercise clause protected the school from these regulations, but the board rejected their plea and ordered elections for union representatives to take place.
The schools sued and sought relief from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which in a 3-0 decision, blocked the enforcement of the board's orders. The court rejected the argument from the board that the schools not being "entirely religious" organizations meant that the First Amendment did not impede them, [3] a standard the board had been adopted two years prior. [4]
The board subsequently appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on October 30, 1978.
The court ruled in favor of the Catholic schools, although closely divided 5-4. The argument from the majority rested on two main points: [5]
For the first point, the court looked at the legislative history of the act and concluded that it was not the intention of Congress to give the Board the power to regulate parochial schools. During the debates on the act, the majority argued, it was clear the main concern was the unfair practices of private employers, not of any public entity, and the act remained silent on specifically religious institutions. The opinion refers to the Taft-Hartley Act, which amended the Wagner Act to explicitly exclude non-profit hospitals from the definition of employer, the standard of which could also be applied to religious schools. An amendment to the original act passed in 1974 to re-include nonprofit hospitals in the definition was also clear in its language not to apply to sectarian institutions. However, the court was silent on whether this ruling applied to other kinds of religious organizations. [6]
For the second point, the court references the Lemon test established seven years earlier, arguing that the board's order violated it by creating an undue entanglement of the government with religion. Since "Religious authority necessarily pervades the school system.", applying these rules to the schools, they argued, would violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Justice William Brennan, joined by three fellow justices filed a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority was wrong to state that the board regulating religious schools was against the intent of the congress that originally passed the Wagner Act. Brennan noted the majority applied a way too demanding burden for determining the intent of a law that was written as broadly as the Wagner Act, saying: "The Act's wording, its legislative history, and the Court's own precedents leave 'the intention of the Congress . . . revealed too distinctly to permit us to ignore it because of mere misgivings as to power.'"
The court appeared to slightly backtrack on this case's ruling in the 1985 case Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor where it ruled that the Department of Labor could enforce minimum wage regulations on behalf of lay employees of religious organizations. [7]
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.
National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The case represented a major expansion in the Court's interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation.
The National Labor Board (NLB) was an independent agency of the United States Government established on August 5, 1933, to handle labor disputes arising under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA).
Graduate student employee unionization, or academic student employee unionization, refers to labor unions that represent students who are employed by their college or university to teach classes, conduct research and perform clerical duties. As of 2014, there were at least 33 US graduate employee unions, 18 unrecognized unions in the United States, and 23 graduate employee unions in Canada. By 2019, it is estimated that there were 83,050 unionized student employees in certified bargaining units in the United States. As of 2023, there were at least 156 US graduate student employee unions and 23 graduate student employee unions in Canada.
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.
The Blue Eagle at Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace is a legal treatise written by Charles J. Morris which analyzes collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute governing most private sector labor relations in the United States. Published in 2005 by Cornell University Press, the text claims that the NLRA guarantees that employees under that Act have the right to bargain collectively through minority unions—but only on a members-only basis—in workplaces where there is not an established majority union, notwithstanding that the present practice and general understanding of the law is that only majority-union employees are entitled to engage in collective bargaining on an exclusivity basis. Contracts resulting from such minority-union bargaining would apply to union members only, not to other employees.
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.
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a United States labor law decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees. The case was originally filed against Hoffman by Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers.
The history of union busting in the United States dates back to the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution produced a rapid expansion in factories and manufacturing capabilities. As workers moved from farms to factories, mines and other hard labor, they faced harsh working conditions such as long hours, low pay and health risks. Children and women worked in factories and generally received lower pay than men. The government did little to limit these conditions. Labor movements in the industrialized world developed and lobbied for better rights and safer conditions. Shaped by wars, depressions, government policies, judicial rulings, and global competition, the early years of the battleground between unions and management were adversarial and often identified with aggressive hostility. Contemporary opposition to trade unions known as union busting started in the 1940s, and continues to present challenges to the labor movement. Union busting is a term used by labor organizations and trade unions to describe the activities that may be undertaken by employers, their proxies, workers and in certain instances states and governments usually triggered by events such as picketing, card check, worker organizing, and strike actions. Labor legislation has changed the nature of union busting, as well as the organizing tactics that labor organizations commonly use.
Wilma B. Liebman is an American lawyer and civil servant who is best known for serving as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). She was designated chair of the board by President Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, becoming only the second woman to lead the NLRB.
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), is a U.S. 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.
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.
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that the President of the United States cannot use his authority under the Recess Appointment Clause of the United States Constitution to appoint public officials unless the United States Senate is in recess and not able to transact Senate business. The Court held that the clause allows the president to make appointments during both intra-session and inter-session recesses but only if the recess is of sufficient length, and if the Senate is actually unavailable for deliberation, thereby limiting future recess appointments. The Court also ruled that any office vacancy can be filled during the recess, regardless of when it arose. The case arose out of President Barack Obama's appointments of Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board and Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (1980), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of labor rights in the United States.
JI Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 321 U.S. 332 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with labor law. Workers at the company's factory had voted to unionize, but J.I. Case Company had refused to negotiate with the new union, and tried to enforce old contracts instead. The court upheld the NLRB's decision that they'd violated the National Labor Relations Act, but said that the NLRB had to re-word the order it had issued.
Golden State Transit Corp v City of Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.
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 United States labor law case that resulted in a split decision before the Supreme Court of the United States. By a 7-2 majority, the Court ruled that undocumented immigrant workers were “employees” covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (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.