NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.

Last updated
National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 11–12, 1939
Decided February 27, 1939
Full case nameNational Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
Citations306 U.S. 292 ( more )
59 S. Ct. 501; 83 L. Ed. 660; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1093
Case history
Prior96 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1938); cert. granted, 305 U.S. 583(1938).
Holding
Decisions of the NLRB must be based on substantial evidence; third-party requests for collective bargaining do not constitute a request for bargaining under the NLRA.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds  · Pierce Butler
Harlan F. Stone  · Owen Roberts
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter
Case opinions
MajorityStone, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Butler, Roberts
DissentBlack, joined by Reed
Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

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. [1] The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) 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.

Contents

Facts

Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. manufactured metal utensils in Terre Haute, Indiana. It recognized a labor union of its employees and signed a one-year collective bargaining agreement on July 14, 1934, which provided for arbitration of disputes and barred work stoppages (pending arbitration). Over the next seven months, the company and union met repeatedly to discuss and negotiate over the union's demands, which included a closed shop and the dismissal of all workers the union had suspended for non-payment of dues. The union struck on March 23, 1935, and the strike turned into a lockout on March 30. The plant reopened with strikebreakers on July 23, 1935. During the strike, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law. The Board attempted to mediate an end to the strike in July and August, but to no avail. The union submitted proposals to the employer in September and October, but received no reply.

On February 14, 1936, the NLRB held Columbian Enameling & Stamping in violation of the NLRA for refusing to bargain in good faith with its workers, and ordered all strikebreakers fired and all former employees rehired. The company sued in federal court to have the order overturned.

Judgment

Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone wrote the decision for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justices James Clark McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and Owen Roberts.

Stone concluded that the NLRB's decision was not supported by the evidence. [2] The NLRB agents' proposals to the employer did not constitute a request for bargaining under the NLRA, and so the employer's refusal to respond to them was not a violation of the law. [3] The NLRB's conclusions, Stone said, were not based on "substantial" evidence. [4] The majority defined substantial evidence as evidence which "must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. [5]

Associate Justice Hugo Black dissented, joined by Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed. Black concluded that the majority had substituted its own appraisal of the evidence for that of the Board's, which was inappropriate. [6] He also concluded that the majority disregarded the evidence that the mediators were negotiating with the employer on behalf of the union. [7]

{Cquote|To conclude that the company—through its president—was unaware the conciliators were acting at the instance of the Union, and therefore is not to be held responsible for its flat refusal to meet with its employees, is both to ignore the record and to shut our eyes to the realities of the conditions of modern industry and industrial strife." [8] Black also noted that no arbitration was pending, and so the union was not in violation of its contract. [9]

Significance

Initially, the Supreme Court had adopted the "mere scintilla" rule. As defined in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad , 222 U.S. 541 (1912), the Court originally required administrative agencies to provide "more than a scintilla" of evidence. [10] But by the late 1930s, the Court had shifted to the "substantial evidence rule." [11] NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. is the first significant, lengthy statement of this rule. [11] But the "substantial evidence" test has been criticized as being "largely an exercise in semantics, i.e., an analysis of the words used in writing opinions and not of the extent in which reviewing courts inquired into the facts." [12]

The case was one of the first clear-cut defeats for the Board before the Supreme Court, after an unprecedented string of 15 successes. [13] Along with NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. , 306 U.S. 240 (1939) and NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. , 306 U.S. 332 (1939), the decision has been called one of the three most significant NLRB cases since NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 301 U.S. 1 (1938) upheld the NLRA's constitutionality. [13] The three cases also expanded the way the Court interpreted the NLRA. Although the justices had previously interpreted the Act solely through the lens of the Commerce Clause (showing strong deference to the Board), now the Court evinced a willingness to apply evidentiary standards to the Board's actions and to impose a less radical interpretation on the law. [14]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939).
  2. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 296.
  3. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 297.
  4. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 299.
  5. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 300.
  6. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 301 (Black, J., dissenting).
  7. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 301-302.
  8. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 303.
  9. ↑ NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. at 306.
  10. ↑ Matthews, p. 44.
  11. 1 2 Matthews, p. 45.
  12. ↑ Davis, p. 915.
  13. 1 2 Gross, p. 83.
  14. ↑ Ross, p. 150.

Related Research Articles

The Railway Labor Act is a United States federal law on US labor law that governs labor relations in the railroad and airline industries. The Act, enacted in 1926 and amended in 1934 and 1936, seeks to substitute bargaining, arbitration, and mediation for strikes to resolve labor disputes. Its provisions were originally enforced under the Board of Mediation, but they were later enforced under a National Mediation Board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

The rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers are set by labor law in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

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).

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).

Card check, also called majority sign-up, is a method for employees to organize into a labor union in which a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards", stating they wish to be represented by the union. Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. Card check and election are both overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The difference is that with card sign-up, employees sign authorization cards stating they want a union, the cards are submitted to the NLRB and if more than 50% of the employees submitted cards, the NLRB requires the employer to recognize the union. The NLRA election process is an additional step with the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election after authorization cards are submitted. In both cases the employer never sees the authorization cards or any information that would disclose how individual employees voted.

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.

A whipsaw strike is a strike by a trade union against only one or a few employers in an industry or a multi-employer association at a time. The strike is often of a short duration, and usually recurs during the labor dispute or contract negotiations—hence the name "whipsaw".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.