Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB

Last updated
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 6–7, 1950
Decided February 26, 1951
Full case nameUniversal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
Citations340 U.S. 474 ( more )
71 S. Ct. 456, 95 L. Ed. 2d 456, 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2428
Case history
PriorUniversal Camera Corp., 79 N.L.R.B. 379, 22 L.R.R.M. (BNA) (1948); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 179 F.2d 749 (2nd Cir. 1950) (enforcing order); cert. granted, 339 U.S. 962(1950).
Holding
A court will defer to a federal agency's findings of fact if supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson  · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark  · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
MajorityFrankfurter, joined by Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Burton, Clark, Minton
Concur/dissentBlack, Douglas
Laws applied
Administrative Procedures Act; Taft-Hartley Act

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a court will defer to a federal agency's findings of fact if supported by "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole." [1] Universal Camera added another qualification to the substantial evidence test laid down in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB . The evidence supporting the agency's conclusion must be substantial in consideration of the record as a whole, even including the evidence that is not consistent with the agency's conclusion.

Contents

Background

Universal Camera Corp. fired an employee who testified under the Wagner Act. [1] The National Labor Relations Board ordered Universal Camera Corp. to reinstate the employee with back pay and to cease and desist terminating employees for this reason. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the order, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split. [2]

Decision

Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court discussed the "substantial evidence" test established by the Court in Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, which interpreted the Wagner Act, the original National Labor Relations Act. The Act provided that "[t]he findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive." [3] The Con Edison court read "evidence" to mean "substantial evidence." "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." [4]

The Universal Camera Court reviewed the Act's legislative history, concluding that "[i]t is fair to say that in all this Congress expressed a mood... As legislation that mood must be respected." [5] The Court found that both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, which amended the National Labor Relations Act, required that courts consider the whole record. In weighing the substantiality of evidence, courts must thus consider the whole body of evidence, including views opposed to the ultimate decision. [6] Justices Black and Douglas concurred only in parts I and II of the opinion, and dissented from part III. [7]

Universal Camera has been "the leading case on the meaning of the APA's 'substantial evidence' test for review of agency factual conclusions in formal proceedings" for over sixty years. [8] Commentators have noted that the substantial evidence test, as determined by Universal Camera, is "less deferential than the jury standard but more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 52(a)." [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

National Labor Relations Act of 1935 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 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.

United States labor law US laws governing employer–employee relationships

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers 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 is no federal law requiring paid holidays or paid family leave, and limited state laws. 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.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon 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. Originally recognized by the United States Supreme Court in a series of cases in the mid-1940s involving racial discrimination by railway workers' unions covered by the Railway Labor Act, the duty of fair representation also applies to workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act and, depending on the terms of the statute, to public sector workers covered by state and local laws regulating labor relations.

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.

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).

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.

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 US 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), also known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a US labor law case of the US Supreme Court 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, Jose 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.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240 (1939), is a United States Supreme Court cas 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.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332 (1939), is US labor law case, decided by a majority of 5 to 2 by the US Supreme Court, 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.

NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of labor rights in the United States.

South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 425 U.S. 800 (1976), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of labor rights in the United States.

<i>FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB</i>

FedEx Home Delivery v NLRB563 F3d 492 is a US labor law case on the scope of protection for labor rights.

References

  1. 1 2 Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 486 (1951). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 477.
  3. ↑ National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.   § 160(e) .
  4. ↑ Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 292, 300 (1951).
  5. ↑ Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 487.
  6. ↑ Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 488.
  7. ↑ Universal Camera, 340 U.S. at 497.
  8. 1 2 Lawson, Gary (2019). Federal administrative law (8 ed.). St. Paul, MN. pp. 543–45. ISBN   1-64020-149-1. OCLC   1061760117.
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.