NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

Last updated

NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12–13, 1939
Decided February 27, 1939
Full case nameNational Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation
Citations306 U.S. 240 ( more )
59 S. Ct. 490; 83 L. Ed. 627; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1092; 1 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,042; 123 A.L.R. 599; 4 L.R.R.M. 515
Case history
PriorFansteel Metallurgical Corp. v. NLRB, 98 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1938); cert. granted, 305 U.S. 590(1938).
Holding
National Labor Relations Act does not confer authority to order an employer to reinstate workers fired after illegal activity, even if the employer's own illegal actions triggered that activity.
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
MajorityHughes, joined by McReynolds, Butler, Roberts
ConcurrenceStone
DissentReed, joined by Black
Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

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. [1]

Contents

Facts

In the summer of 1936, workers at Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation's plant near Chicago, Illinois, attempted to form a union. Fansteel infiltrated a labor spy into the union, who committed espionage against the union. Although the union attempted to meet several times with the plant superintendent to negotiate a contract, each time the employer refused. The employer established a company union in an attempt to weaken support for the independent union, but this failed. On February 17, 1937, the frustrated union announced a sit-down strike and seized a portion of the plant. [2] The employer won an injunction ordering the union men to vacate the premises, which they ignored. [2] An attempt by sheriff's deputies to eject the men on February 19 failed, but a second attempt on February 26 was successful. [2] [3] The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held on March 14, 1938, that Fansteel had to reinstate 90 of the workers because the company had violated the Act first (precipitating the sit-down strike). [2] [4]

Judgment

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the decision for the majority, joined by Associate Justices James Clark McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and Owen Roberts. Hughes held that a sit-down strike was "good cause" for discharging the workers, and that the National Labor Relations Act did not give the NLRB the authority to force an employer to rehire workers who had violated the law. [5] The majority also held that the NLRB could not order an employer to bargain with the union in the absence of evidence that the union has the support of a majority of the workers, even though the employer has engaged in illegal activity which may have undermined that pro-union support. [6]

Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone concurred in part. Stone agreed that the sit-down strikers had been lawfully fired and lost the protection of the NLRA. [7] He disagreed, however, that the workers who abetted the sit-down strikers had lost the protection of the Act (as the majority had concluded), and felt the Board had the power to order their reinstatement. [8]

Associated Justice Stanley Forman Reed dissented, joined by Justice Hugo Black. Reed argued that the majority had recognized that the sit-down strikers could be punished for their lawless acts, but that the majority refused to punish the employer for engaging in lawless acts which led to an unfair labor practice strike. [9] Congress, Reed said, had given the Board the power to return to the status quo ante, and all workers should be reinstated. [10]

Significance

Many commentators believe Fansteel outlawed the sit-down strike. It did not; rather, the court held that the NLRB had no authority to force an employer to reinstate workers who engaged in a sit-down strike. [11] The majority opinion declared that the strike was already illegal: "Nor is it questioned that the seizure and retention of respondent's property were unlawful. It was a high-handed proceeding without shadow of legal right." [12] Historian Sidney Fine contends that this finding "definitively resolved" the legality of the sit-down strike. [13]

The Fansteel Court initially limited discharge to those employees who had violated the law during a strike, [4] but the Supreme Court held in Southern Steamship Co. v. National Labor Relations Board , 316 U.S. 31 (1942), that an employer could discharge an employee for any violation of federal law, whether it occurred during a strike or not. [4] And in NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. , 306 U.S. 332 (1939), the Court held that an employer could discipline a striking employee for acts committed away from the job site. [14] The Supreme Court would eventually hold collective work slow-downs, collective refusal to work overtime, and "quickie" strikes equally unlawful. [15]

Along with NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. , 306 U.S. 292 (1939) and NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. , the decision has been called one of the three most significant NLRB cases since National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 301 U.S. 1 (1938) upheld the NLRA's constitutionality. [16] 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. [17]

Notes

  1. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (1939).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Gross, p. 24.
  3. ↑ "Six Hurt in Battle as Sheriff Tries to Oust 'Sit-Downs'," New York Times, February 20, 1937; "Fansteel Rejects Terms, Bars Gov. Horner's Proposal of Tacit Recognition of C.I.O. Union," New York Times, February 26, 1937; "Gas Barrage Ousts Fansteel Strikers in a Short Battle," New York Times, February 27, 1937.
  4. 1 2 3 Brisbin, p. 57.
  5. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 252, 255, 257.
  6. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 261.
  7. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 263.
  8. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 265.
  9. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 266.
  10. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 267-269.
  11. ↑ Gross, pp. 83-84.
  12. ↑ NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. at 252.
  13. ↑ Fine, p. 176.
  14. ↑ Brisbin, p. 57-58.
  15. ↑ Craver, p. 20.
  16. ↑ Gross, p. 83.
  17. ↑ Ross, p. 150.

Related Research Articles

The Railway Labor Act is a United States federal 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">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 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.

<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

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. 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.

A sit-down strike is a labour strike and a form of civil disobedience in which an organized group of workers, usually employed at factories or other centralized locations, take unauthorized or illegal possession of the workplace by "sitting down" at their stations.

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.

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.

Guy Otto Farmer was an American lawyer and civil servant. He was Chairman of the United States National Labor Relations Board from July 1953 to August 1955. After leaving government service, he represented the Bituminous Coal Operators Association, the collective bargaining arm of the bituminous coal mining industry in the United States.

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.

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.