NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co.

Last updated
NLRB v. Sands Mfg. Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 1939
Decided February 27, 1939
Full case nameNational Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co.
Citations306 U.S. 332 ( more )
59 S. Ct. 508; 83 L. Ed. 682; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1094
Case history
PriorOn appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Holding
Decision of the NLRB regarding refusal to bargain overturned due to lack of substantial evidence.
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
MajorityRoberts, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Butler, Stone
DissentBlack, Reed
Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

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.

Contents

Facts

Sands Manufacturing Co. was a company based in Cleveland, Ohio, which made water heaters. In the spring of 1934, its employees joined the Mechanics Educational Society of America. A 60-day contract was agreed to, and although it expired both sides repeatedly agreed to extend it. When workload lessened, company policy was to transfer men in slack departments to those areas where workload was high, respecting both their seniority and existing pay rates. In 1934, the company won a government contract, and agreed that the "new men" would not only be paid a lower wage but also would be the first discharged once work slacked off. A new contract was reached in June 1935 in which management won the right not to respect the wage rates and seniority rights of men transferred to new departments during slack times.

As the government contract ended, the company closed the heater tank department. When the company sought to hire workers in its machine shop, it asked to hire the "new men" rather than transfer "old men" from other departments (which were shutting down). The union argued old men should be hired in the machine shop before any "new men." The union and company met repeatedly over the issue, but nothing was resolved. The company closed its plant in August 1935. When it reopened in September, it offered employment to several "old men" at much lower wage rates. The union refused the offer. The plant reopened, and the union began picketing.

The National Labor Relations Board held that Sands Manufacturing had refused to bargain with union, had discriminated against union members in hiring, and had discouraged membership in the union. Sands Manufacturing sued to have the Board's order overturned. A court of appeals agreed with the employer.

Judgment

Majority ruling

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

Roberts held that the NLRB's decision was not supported by the evidence before the Board. [1] Although the Board had alleged that the evidence supported only one conclusion, this allegation was also not supported by the evidence. [1] The majority concluded that since no negotiations were pending and no new meetings were scheduled, there was no "negotiating" going on and hence the employer's plant shut-down did not violate the NLRA. [2] Furthermore, since the employer had offered to hire some men back, clearly there had been no refusal to bargain. [2] The employer's decision to rehire some of the "old men" by contracting with them individually was also not a violation of the Act. [3]

Dissent

Associate Justice Hugo Black dissented, joined by Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed. No dissenting opinion was filed.

Significance

The case was one of the first clear-cut defeats for the NLRB before the Supreme Court, after an unprecedented string of 15 successes. [4] The decision placed significant limitations on the ability of unions to engage in collective action. [5] [6] The Sands Court also upheld the right of an employer to violate the NLRA so long as the union had already acted illegally. [6] The Court rejected the union's good faith effort to interpret its contract, which led to the strike. Only the Court's interpretation of the contract mattered, the majority concluded, [7] and strikes over differences of interpretation of the contract were no longer protected activity. [7] [8] The "employer's overriding right to unimpeded access to labor was held to justify its unilateral action to resolve an impasse in its favor." [8]

Along with NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. , 306 U.S. 240 (1939) and NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. , 306 U.S. 292 (1939), the decision has been called one of the three most significant NLRB cases since NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. , 301 U.S. 1 (1938) upheld the NLRA's constitutionality. [4] 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. [9]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332, 339.
  2. 1 2 National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332, 344.
  3. ↑ National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332, 345.
  4. 1 2 Gross, p. 83.
  5. ↑ Atleson, p. 192; Klare, p. 303-304.
  6. 1 2 Tomlins, p. 260.
  7. 1 2 Lichtenstein and Harris, p. 145.
  8. 1 2 Engerman and Gallman, p. 683.
  9. ↑ Ross, p. 150.

Related Research Articles

<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 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.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon Canadian and U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.