*1 FRIED- BOARD v. RELATIONS LABOR NATIONAL CO. MARKS CLOTHING MAN-HARRY April Argued February 11, 1937. Decided 422 and 423. Nos. 1937. Jr., Fahy Wyzanski, Charles Charles E.
Messrs. Attorney Cummings, whom General Solicitor Gen Feller, A. Reed, Horsky, and Messrs. H. A. Charles eral Watts, B. Laurence A. L. Knapp, Robert A. Wirin brief, petitioner.* were on the case summarized from the * Arguments in this are briefs. Extracts arguments in appear other Labor Act will the oral this cases appendix in the bound volume. an *4 Harry whom Mr. Weinberg, with J. Green Leonard Mr. respondent. brief, was on *11 Hughes delivered the opinion Chief Justice of Mr. the Court. Board, by National Labor Relations its orders of the 28, required respondent,
March Friedman-Harry Inc., to and Company, cease desist Clothing Marks from its or discharging any employees of otherwise discriminat- ing regard tenure conditions of their em- threatening action, and from such ployment, for the rea- or employees joined that such have son assisted the Amal- of gamated Clothing Workers America or otherwise en- from gaged activity; in union maintaining surveillance
71 organization labor of the their activities therewith; and from interfer- in connection employees with, coercing, employees manner its ing any right self-organization representa- exercise their mu- bargaining tion for or other purpose collective National guaranteed § tual as protection aid required respond- Act. The orders also Labor Relations discharged employ- ent offer to certain reinstatement loss ees, pay, post to make their and to notices good thirty days that would cease and respondent desist orders. The Circuit Court practices restrained orders, (2d) 1, Appeals refused to enforce the F. and this Court granted certiorari.
The proceeding was initiated National Labor upon charges respondent Relations Board that had discharged they certain because had engaged in union activities. The complaints Board two issued alleging unfair meaning within the practices National Labor Act. hearing Relations Notice of was given. Respondent appeared specially and moved dis- complaints upon grounds miss the Act, *12 the proceedings Board, before the in were contravention I III of Articles and and First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Eighth, Tenth and Thirteenth Amendments the Constitution of the United States. Reserving these respondent objections, filed answers denying all the alle- gations of the complaints except that respondent is a Virginia corporation engaged in the business of manu- facturing clothing men’s in Richmond. The Board over- objections ruled the jurisdiction to its and the validity of the Act. For the purpose of presenting the constitu- questions, tional expedite and to the proceedings, counsel for respondent announced at the beginning of the hear- “that ings he would not any cross-examine of the Board’s witnesses and would not offer any countervailing evi-
72 dence.” The Board find- received and made its evidence ings. objections There were numerous respondent to the competency relevancy testimony. and of certain
The Board found: Respondent, Virginia corporation, a plant Richmond, has its at in engaged where it purchase raw manufacture, sale materials and the distribution men’s materials clothing. principal The cent, of these goods. are woolen and 99.67 per worsted cent, goods Virginia, per come from other than States being purchased in New York and fabricated for the linings most in other States. Cotton come part sev- eral Particulars as to the southern States. sources garments set forth. Of the manufac- other materials are cent, per are respondent, purchased by tured 82.8 by department the State, mainly outside stores customers larger throughout in clothing stores cities men’s country. Respondent maintains sales office and through York which 15 City in New showroom cent, made. sales Orders are of the total are per sent goods being Rich- plant, the Richmond sold f.o.b. respondent’s In the volume of business mond. 80,000 units, $800,000 increasing amounted 150,000 ten units first months $1,750,000 of 1935. findings respect made elaborate Board industry manufacturing and its relation to clothing these are the fol- Among findings
interstate commerce. twenty industry among lowing: clothing The men’s country. manufacturing industries this important most cent, are manufacturing establishments Fifty per are of the remainder York; New most the State Illinois, Massa- Maryland, Jersey, New Pennsylvania, wear men’s fab- Ohio. chusetts, California and Since England States, New largely produced are rics *13 mills across state from the transported be must goods in the States above fabricating establishments lines to
73. sold, The mentioned. manufactured clothing is through- cent, sales, nation, only out about 48 of per the total being in the seven States which produce made about 90 cent, per of total clothing. men’s findings The de- sales, scribe the methods of the New York market being largest in the The country. Board concluded: “The clothing men’s is thus an industry industry which is nearly entirely dependent operations in its upon pur- chases and sales interstate inter- upon commerce and transportation. state There is a constant flow raw wool from the western States and foreign countries to New England where it mills is transformed into fabrics, men’s wear sponging thence and shrink- ing plants of New York and Philadelphia, then, joined necessary the other materials, raw fabricating- factories of the Middle Atlantic States for manufacture . industry into . itself clothing. . The has no doubt status, as to its for the Executive Director the New York Clothing Exchange, which Inc., rep- Manufacturers cent, 250 doing resents about manufacturers 70 per market, total the New York his business stated industry that is conducted as an affidavit interstate entirely dependent upon interstate business and commerce.” findings also made relation the labor
The Board The involved. Board found: “The organization here Clothing Workers America Amalgamated 125,000 composed of over men and women organization boys’ clothing industry. the men’s and . employed . . by the recognition employers before period long and was marked bitter strikes. Amalgamated In strike in general had been a New City York 1921 there eight months caused losses had lasted which employers employees. A dollars millions of similar in New York in lasted for six general strike weeks firms in all area and their and involved *14 .74 nearly the was workers wage The loss
35,000 workers. to the manufacturers ran financial loss $6,000,000, the industrial strife costly This re- . millions. . . into the by the Amalgamated recognition finally in sulted 1924 was ended . New York strike . employers. . between agreement collective of a by the establishment Amalgamated which the manufacturers and leading the in that manufacturers area. joined other was soon Cincinnati, Baltimore, Boston, Rochester, Factories Philadelphia recognized the Louis and Cleveland, St. Today with it. agreements into union and entered agreements clothing collective has Amalgamated employing greater and contractors manufacturers workers the United clothing number of the States. brought peace have agreements collective that These agreements. that entered such portion industry has signing agreement . . . the collective Since area, Clothing York York the New New Manufac- Amalgamated Inc. and the Exchange, turers have han- jointly 21,193 a complaints disputes. dled total In 4 only slightly per 898 of over cases, cent., these awas required arbitration because of inability agree. resort to cent, per Of 30 were impartial these settled a acting mediator; chairman the remainder as he sat an and rendered decision. . . as arbitrator . The Presi- Clothing York dent of New Manufacturers Exchange, the ‘organization . has Inc. . . stated that collective of an bargaining machinery, impartial establishment founding unemployment and the tribunal, insurance outstanding in the industry are the achievements’ Amalgamated Clothing Workers per- that ‘has been haps largest single contributing factor to the lasting- have harmony that characterized peace those clothing Amalgamated Clothing markets where Workers of contracting other party America was the to the collective ” agreement.’ practices, the Board found With unfair labor respect employees respondent had. the summer of Work- Amalgamated Clothing formed a local union of the membership therein. soliciting of America and were ers hostility “at indicated Respondent’s once management of its declared organization to the union *15 join Amalgamated.” not the permit that it would them respondent showing Statements the of the his president antagonism quoted by to the union were the Board. At that he group employees one he stated to would time every discharge one that attended the union meeting. by Similar were respondent’s secretary. statements made Respondent’s “has management maintained surveillance over union meetings and activities.” The findings set forth of the the circumstances discharge employees. The Board that discharges concluded these were because the in membership employees the organi- labor their zation and activities in connection with it. The found that Board also interference in industry with employees the activities of joining and assisting labor organizations the refusal to accept the procedure of had collective led and bargaining tends to lead to strikes disputes and other that burden and obstruct commerce. findings
The Board both as nature of re- spondent’s business and circumstances of the dis- charge are supported by its the evidence.
For the stated opinion reasons our in National Labor Board Laughlin Relations v. Jones & Steel Corp., ante, objections we hold that the p. raised respondent construction and validity of the National Labor Rela- Act are tions without merit. The decrees of the Circuit Appeals Court of are reversed and the causes are re- for further manded proceedings conformity with this opinion.
Reversed. McReynolds following delivered Justice Me. dissenting preceding: the cases opinion Devanter, Mr. Mr. Justice Suther- Van Justice agree Mr. and I are unable to land, Justice Butler just announced. decisions were rightly We conclude these causes decided their Appeals the three Circuit Courts and that judg- opinions given be affirmed. there ments should The without dissent are well-considered sound. terse, judges by experienced They meaning disclose ascribed out declared, to what Court has often and are set this below full. decisions,
Considering far-reaching of these import con- departure what we has been from understand sistently here, extraordinary power ruled and the con- three,1 obligation to a our present firmed Board of plain. views becomes departs we think, as well-established Court, *16 States,
principles
Corp.
followed
Schechter
v. United
Co.,
(May, 1935)
U. S.
295
495
v.
Coal
Carter Carter
1936).
(May,
authority
77 would be invalid. courts, authority Six district on the of Schechter’s and held cases, Carter’s have authority regulate Board has no to relations between employers engaged local production.a judicial No opinion decision or been contrary has cited, and we none. Every brought find consideration uphold forward Act applicable before us was support the Acts held unconstitutional in causes decided years. within And rightly two the lower deemed courts controlling. them By employers— its terms the Labor Act extends to 2
large and small —unless excluded and de definition,* if clares that or with, restrains, one of these interferes any employee affiliations, etc., coerces his regarding labor shall a regarded this as unfair labor And practice. be “labor kind organization” organization means any any or agency employee or or committee any representation or in plan purpose which exists for the whole part concerning grievances, labor dis dealing employers Pratt, Corp. Stout v. 864. Bendix Products Supp. 12 F. v. Eagle-Picher Madden, Beman, Lead Supp. Co. v. 14 F. 58. 15 F. Bethlehem, Shipbuilding Corp. Meyers, Supp. Supp. 407. v. 15 F. Elliott, Electric 915. El Co. v. 15 81. Oberman & Supp. F. Paso Pratt, Co. v. Supp. F. 887. (2) Sec. 2. "employer” any acting The term person includes in the directly employer, indirectly, or interest of an but shall not include States, any political or State or thereof, United subdivision or any subject person Railway Act, to the Labor amended time time, any organization (other acting or labor than when an em as ployer), anyone acting capacity agent in the of officer such organization. Sec. 2. (3) “employee” any The term employee, shall include *17 shall employees particular not be limited to employer, of a unless explicitly otherwise, any Act states and shall include individual consequence of, whose work has ceased as a with, or in connection any dispute any current labor or practice, because of unfair labor and regular who has any substantially not equivalent obtained other or con employment of putes, pay, rates of hours wages, .b of work ditions manufacturing be The to respondents happen three Act relatively two small. large, concerns —one to Obvi- common all. grounds applied upon now to each may gravely concerns as to these ously what is determined in a engage great of who employers affect a multitude manufactur- variety enterprises mercantile, of private — puts It into etc. stock-raising, mining, ing, publishing, local purely of control over power of a Board the hands permissible. industry beyond heretofore deemed anything employed as an any individual employment, include but shall not family any or service of agricultural laborer, in the domestic or by parent his or any employed home, person at his or individual spouse. self-organization, right Employees have the Sec. 7. shall collectively through bargain organizations, join
form, or assist labor engage in choosing, concerted representatives of their own bargaining mutual collective or other activities, purpose of for the protection. aid or b any organization” organiza means The term “labor (5) 2. Sec. any agency employee representation kind, any commit or or tion which participate in which exists for plan, tee or concerning dealing employers part, of purpose, in whole inor pay, wages, employment, hours of grievances, disputes, rates conditions of work. hereby board, to known as (a) created a be There Sec. 3. (hereinafter Board” referred to as Relations “National Labor composed members, shall be “Board”), be of three who which shall President, by with the advice and consent of appointed original appointed members shall be for a One of the Senate. year, years, and one for a of three one a term term one term appointed for terms five years, five successors shall be but their any vacancy years each, except fill a shall individual chosen to only he appointed unexpired term the member whom be for the designate shall one member to serve as succeed. The President shall may Any member of the Board be removed chairman of the Board. neglect duty President, hearing, for upon notice and office, but for no other cause. malfeasance
79 II. Circuit) Appeals (Fifth Court of
[No. 419] Circuit 1936, 83 998 (2d) June Opinion F. Judges Circuit Sibley, Hutcheson, Foster,
Before has Board The National Labor Relations “Per Curiam. re- it, which by us order made petitioned to enforce an quires organized Laughlin Corporation, Jones & Steel certain dis- Pennsylvania, under the to reinstate laws of Aliquippa, in charged employees Pa., in its steel plant to do things other in that connection. petition denied, because,
“The must under the facts be evidence, by found the and shown .the the Board Board jurisdiction has no dispute over a labor between employer touching discharge and employees of laborers in a steel plant who in engaged only were manufacture. The Con- stitution does not vest in Federal Government power regulate as of employer the relation such employee production in or manufacture. “ or produces commodity, ‘One who manufactures a sub- commerce, him sequently shipped by sold and in interstate such sale and shipment whether were intended originally has not, engaged two separate distinct and activi- far So as produces commodity, ties. he manufactures his purely business is local. far as ships, So he sells and or contracts ship, to sell and commodity customers state, engages another he in interstate commerce. In former, respect subject he is only regulation state; respect latter, to regulation only by government. Utah Power & L. Pfost, federal Co. v. 165, 182. Production is not S. commerce but a U. for commerce. Chassaniol step preparation v. Green- 584-587. wood, 291 U. S. “ have seen that word “commerce” is ‘We the equiva- “intercourse phrase lent of the purposes trade.” culminating leading up to Plainly the incidents intercourse. not constitute such mining do coal wages, hours their men, fixing employment *19 respect in conditions, bargaining working labor and collec- or separately on carried things of these —whether pur- all constitute intercourse tively and —each thing The latter is not of trade. a of poses production, which employee, and apart employer the relation of from in character. local occupations purely in producing all the com- mine the aim and Extraction of coal from the coal Commerce in result of local activities. pleted of these activi- being by force brought is not into mined agreements, and circumstances by negotiations, ties but sub- Mining brings the entirely production. apart dis- into existence. Commerce ject matter of commerce Co., v. 298 U. S. it.’ Carter Carter Coal poses of 18, 1936. May decided very large a business, has the inter- employer
“That the by might of which a strike which ruption in consequence that such production and strike happen, and stopped prod- interstate commerce in the might be affected, regulation not make the of the relation ucts does justified power Congress, under the commerce because on interstate is too remote effect commerce possible right regu- Federal invasion of the State’s to warrant relation. Nor is it important employer-employee late the of his raw imports materials employer part large sells a exports part interstate commerce commerce, imports his in interstate which product strike. by possible would be exports possibly stopped together The entire business thus connected employers’ as not, respects Federal make a case different power, does from that in which manufac- importation materials, them, export ture and sale and are product con- doing by persons. The here employer by ducted three constitutional respective alter the things not all three does mak- governments. and State of the Federal spheres Steel Laughlin & by of steel Jones and fabrication ing Penn- the State of regulable by is production Corporation also corporation engages notwithstanding sylvania, bringing regulable Congress commerce interstate delivering selling again its raw materials and specific intent to im- products. present appears its No interstate commerce means of a strike pede destroy manufacturing in a plant, other like direct obstruction to or burden interstate on commerce. The order we are asked to enforce is one not shown to be authorized to be made under the authority Congress. Carter Carter v. Co., supra. Coal petition
“The is denied.”
III. Circuit Court Appeals of (Sixth Circuit) [Nos. 420-421] Opinion 30, 1936, June (2d) 85 F. Moorman,
Before Hicks, and Simons, Circuit Judges. “Per Curiam. The National Labor Board Relations has filed a in petition this to court enforce an order is- sued by it in proceedings which it against instituted Fruehauf Trailer Company. The order directs the Trail- er Company to cease and desist from or discharging to threatening discharge any of its employees because of their in activities connection with the United Auto- mobile Workers Labor Federal Union No. 19,375, cease discouraging employees its from becoming of members union, that to offer to certain of its former employees and full immediate reinstatement in their former posi- prejudice tions without to their seniority rights, to make employees any such for whole losses of pay they that have suffered reason of their discharge by paying wages from would have as they earned what them throughout notices discharges, post of and their dates it stating that conspicuous places, in plant, its Detroit threatening or discharging and desisted has ceased United Auto- joining discharge employees its 19,375. No. Federal Labor Union Workers mobile seeking filed Company petition has its Trailer Fruehauf it the court set and praying of the order a review before the Labor of proceeding record aside. The been have petitions and the two Board has been filed court. together heard this or- Company corporation Trailer Fruehauf “The State of under laws of the existing ganized and manufacture, assembly, in the engaged and is Michigan Detroit, plant its trailers at and sale automobile and used the manufacture parts The material Mich. to the shipped plant. trailers are production many of them are manufactured, are After the trailers use. for sale and The order to other states shipped regulate and control the Trailer question undertakes with its dealings relations and en- Company’s at manufacture of trailers production in the gaged directly in Detroit and not affect does plant company’s Company the Trailer pur- any the activities to its materials transporting plant chasing production manufacture and for the trailers parts of such after are selling they trailers shipping in the It was issued under the authority manufactured. *21 July 5, known as 1935, the National Congress ofAct (29 A., § U. C. 151 et seq.) Act. S. Relations Labor the Act is claimed under the authority for commerce Since the is the Constitution. order directed clause of regulation of the relations between the control and its in Company respect Trailer production in activities manufacture their
83 does not directly trailers and affect any phase of any interstate commerce which the Trailer Company may since, be under engaged, ruling of Carter v. Carter Coal 298 S. Company, U. 238, Congress has no au- (cid:127) thority power regulate or control such relations the Trailer between and its employees, Company National Labor Relations Board without was authority to issue order. National See Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Corporation, (2d) Steel 83 F. 998 (C. 5), C. A. decided June 1936.
“The petition accordingly the Board dismissed and the order is set aside.”
IV. Appeals (Second Circuit) Circuit Court of [Nos. 422-423] Opinion July 13, 1936, F. 1 (2d) Before Mantón, Swan, Hand, and A. N. Judges. Circuit
“Per Virginia Curiam. The respondent, corporation, a manufacturer men’s clothing with principal its factory office and its Va. Richmond, Practically all are brought raw materials used from other states Virginia down into where respondent manufactures them clothing. into men’s About of the manufactured 83% products Richmond, are sold f.o.b. to customers located than Virginia. states other charges
“Two sets of were filed with petitioner’s local Amalgamated Regional Director Clothing Work- ers of a labor union of America, workers in the men’s industry, which it clothing alleged was the re- (29 National spondent violated the Labor Relations Act A., seq.) by discharging § U. 151 et S. C. from its employ against, 29 out of 800 discriminating of its employees, they engaged because had union activities. The Board § (b) of complaint filed under Act (29 U. S. C. A., *22 84 was found to (b)) respondent hearing 160 and after a
§ desist ordered cease have violated the Act and was practices. from the unfair labor engaged respondent is theory is that “Petitioner’s of raw shipment in of the because interstate commerce shipment its states materials from other to it addition, that the states, in products and, other finished in Swift & Co. doctrine, exemplified flow of as commerce brings this manufacturer v. U. S. States, United 196 Re- regulate within the commerce. power federal National Labor Relations Act spondent contends that the and therefore invalid it, as unconstitutional applied to provisions against to enforce its it attempt illegal. labor com- alleged practices “It is unfair shown that clothing manufacture of plained of occurred involved Richmond, None the workers had do Va. clothing its manufac- transportation after operations in various They engaged were ture. factory. Richmond employer
“The relations between the and its industry merely were manufacturing this incidents production. manufacturing, respondent In no its was in way engaged commerce, in interstate did nor its commerce as to practices directly so interstate come affect power. within the federal commerce Carter v. Carter Poultry Corp. Co., 238; U. S. Schechter v. United Coal 298 authority No warrants the con- States, U. S. 495. Federal powers permit clusion that the Government dealings between or em- regulation employers engaged purely local business of ployees when manufacture. may
“Therefore the orders to cease and desist not be enforced.
“Petitions denied.”
V. *23 Labor Board formulated and then In each cause the per- labor towards charge practices sustained a of unfair in It ordered employed only production. sons restoration discharged positions pay- to former were declared ment losses sustained. These orders ground respondents that upon invalid below while thereby carrying production operations on were not en- in in gaging commerce; practices interstate that directly did operations course of not affect interstate such consequently commerce; respondents’ actions did not come within Congressional power.
Respondent in 419 is a large, integrated No. manufac- turer fourth products largest of iron and steel —the It production plants Pennsyl- United States. has two vania where raw from brought points materials outside the state are converted into finished which are products, thereafter distributed in throughout interstate commerce many states. The Corporation has assets amounting to $180,000,000, gross $47,000,000, income employs 22,000 people 10,000 Aliquippa plant in the where the — complaining employees worked. far they So as relate to essential principles presently the activities of important, this Corporation, large, while not materially do differ respondents very those the other many small producers and distributors. It has attained great size; occupies important an place business; and oper- owns ates of ore, mines coal, Pennsyl- lime-stone outside vania, output which, with other raw material, moves to the production plants. At this plants movement ends. Having come rest remains in ware- this material houses, storage etc., months, until yards, often for process of com- begins. manufacture After this has been pleted, the finished commerce. products go into interstate manufac- discharged only employees labored transporta- in the They part no department. took
turing they participate nor did away plant; from the tion to followed manufacture. activity preceded which any which with those activities are common concern is Our as are Such circumstances enterprises. three may size, of products, character merely etc.— fortuitous — sweep of the statute will The wide on one put be side. given if consideration be readily appear more relatively smallest and proceedings against Board’s ap- If Act Clothing Company. important least —the employees in Company the relations of plies to larger respondents applies it to the production, of course although the affairs with like business elements *24 Though differ- may present latter other characteristics. raw materi- procure respondents in all ing respects, some manufacture, fabricate they als the state where outside beyond then the state. ship within and respondent, Michigan 420-21 corporation, In Nos. the for commercial trailers automobiles from manufactures brought raw state, materials outside that and there- in many single after sells these It states. has a manu- facturing at Detroit plant receipts and annual around $3,000,000; people employed. 900 are respondent Virginia
In 422-23 the is a corporation Nos. in engaged manufacturing and distributing cloth- men’s a single It and ing. plant has chief office at Richmond, amounting perhaps annual business em- $2,000,000, 800, brings almost all raw ploys material from other output ships and states the interstate commerce. 3,300 plants some similar There are manufacturing States, in the United which clothing together employ annually put products out persons 150,000 worth $800,000,000.
87 VI. typical small manufactur- Clothing Company a produces than one-half of
ing per which less one concern clothing produced in United States cent the men’s 150,000 engaged workmen employs 800 today, therein. If closed the ultimate effect on commerce It clothing obviously negligible. would be stands seeking acquire a monopoly is not or to restrain alone, There is no evidence of a strike its employees trade. any threatened, nothing at time or that one is now if probable result indicate one should occur.
Some Labor account of the Board’s proceedings against will Company this indicate the ambit of the Act as presently construed. Amalgamated
September 28, Clothing America, Workers of purporting to act (b) § under Act,3 of the National Relations filed with Board (b) charged any person engaged Sec. 10. Whenever it has engaging any practice, Board, any in or is such unfair labor or agent agency designated or purposes, the Board for such shall power upon person have to issue and cause to be served such a com plaint stating charges respect, containing in that a notice of hearing thereof, designated before the Board or a member or before a agent agency, place fixed, daj's at a therein not less five than after serving complaint. Any complaint may of said such be amended by member, agency agent, conducting hearing or the Board any prior its discretion at time issuance of an order based *25 person complained thereon. The so right of shall have the to file an original complaint answer to the or amended person and appear in give testimony or otherwise place and at the and time fixed in the complaint. In discretion of the member, agent, agency or con ducting hearing Board, any person may or other be allowed proceeding to intervene in the said present and to testimony. any In proceeding prevailing such the rules of evidence in courts of law or equity controlling. shall not be en- had
“Charge” stating Clothing Company that of meaning within labor practices in unfair gaged in had, days it on stated (1) (3) § the Act — —in discharged, 1935, unjustifiably August September, and against twenty some named demoted discriminated restrained, had and, ways, union other members of that in the exercise employees with and coerced interfered representatives choice for collective right their free are practices further “that said labor And bargaining. affecting commerce within the practices unfair meaning of said Act.” description no the Com- “Charge”
This contained any concerning against strike it business, word no pany’s persons The number of em- threatened. present past, joined had the union of these is many not how ployed or disclosed. a “Complaint” issued which Board
Thereupon the “Charge,” alleged incorpora- particulars recited Virginia, ownership and of a Company tion of the is continuously where it engaged at .Richmond plant clothing”; distribution of men’s sale and “production, brought from other states and manufac- that material clothing, tured into which sold shipped many states, etc., constituting of aforesaid a continuous —“all among states.” Also that of commerce the several flow Clothing Com- plant the Richmond operating while off or demoted, discriminated discharged, laid pany at against twenty “employed production some persons for the all of reason that the said plant the said ... them, joined a labor and each assisted employees, Amalgamated Clothing as the Work- organization known America, engaged concerted ers activities purpose for the bargaining other collective mutual aid etc. protection,” and other Further that among circulated its employees and under- Company
89 sign writing expressing them to satisfac coerce took to conditions; induced some members of the union tion things, etc.—all of which other similar withdraw; did to affecting commerce to unfair labor practices amounted 5 2 (4)4 (6) (7) § 8 (1) (3) §of meaning within the unfair oc practices “The labor Act. the Labor aforesaid states, and on among commerce the several cur in aforesaid and others plant experience basis of industries, burden such same other and obstruct free flow have led and commerce and the thereof tend burdening obstructing to to labor such disputes lead free thereof.” commerce and flow says nothing concerning complaint any strike or threat- against Clothing past, present Company is no the number ened; allegation concerning there joined persons employed, many union, how or value of the output. practice employer— It unfair Sec. 8. shall be an labor for an
(1) with, restrain, employees in the To interfere coerce exercise or rights guaranteed in section 7. (2) To dominate interfere with the or formation or administration any organization support labor or other to contribute financial or Provided, subject regulations it: That pub- to rules and made and pursuant (a), employer lished the Board to section 6 an not shall prohibited permitting during be from to with him confer working hours pay. without loss of time or By (3) regard employment discrimination in hire or tenure of any encourage discourage or term or of employment condition or membership any organization: Provided, nothing labor That Act, (U. this or Recovery Supp. in the C., National Industrial S. Act VII, 701-712), any title time, secs. as amended from time or in agreement code approved prescribed any thereunder, or in other States, preclude statute of the employer United shall an making agreement organization (not an with a labor established, maintained, by any or assisted action defined in this Act as an unfair practice) require as a employment condition of membership organization therein if such labor representative is the em- *27 objecting to appearance special filed a respondent The overruled; an was also jurisdiction, which Board’s the but employees, discharge of admitting the certain answer of the allegations denied the generally it otherwise “Complaint.” to the Com- Board demanded access
Thereupon the of the accounts, of disclosure private records pany’s by private owners, invested its the capital of amount its the amounts employees, payrolls, all its names of of purchases made, of all and whom the and character number made, including of and to whom sales amounts units, employees kind the number of the plant of and (a), appropriate collective section 9 provided as ployees agreement by made. bargaining such when unit covered against employee an discharge discriminate (4) To or otherwise charges testimony given or under this Act. he filed has because bargain representatives of his collectively with the (5) To refuse subject (a). provisions of Section 9 employees, designated purposes for the (a) Representatives or selected 9. Sec. majority employees bargaining of the in a unit of collective representatives purposes, for such shall be exclusive appropriate employees purposes unit for the collective bar- all the such of employment, respect pay, wages, hours of or gaining in to rates employment: Provided, any em- That individual other conditions of right any have the at time ployee group of shall or a' grievances employer. to their present 5 traffic, trade, commerce, (6) The term “commerce” means Sec. among States, transportation, the several or be or communication Territory any of the United States tween District Columbia or foreign country any Territory, any State or or between other any State, Columbia, Territory, or within the Dis the District of or any Territory, points or between same trict of Columbia or any Territory through any or or the District State but other State any foreign country. Columbia or (7) “affecting commerce, or bur- The term commerce” means in dening obstructing commerce, or commerce or free flow of having tending dispute burdening led or to lead to obstructing commerce or the free of commerce. flow names of the during eight years, the and addresses direc- the names and Company, tors officers of the addresses salesmen, ownership Company, the stock its if and the affiliation, any, companies, with other former occupations and of its stockholders. businesses held at hearings Richmond and
During Washington, evidence, it received a unfettered rules mass of irrelevant. Much related to the char- testimony largely— business, general acter methods used in respondent’s industry, employed men’s the numbers clothing general effect of therein. strikes circumstances *28 specified or demotion of attending discharge the the em- out. ployees brought were Board found—
Following this the industry The of the United States clothing men’s ranks wage in employed, sixteenth the number earners with 150,000 and 3,000 more than firms workers engaged. The in of manufacture are steps typical process described. in from brought many states, Raw material is and after are garments fabrication the sold and delivered through “The and retailers. men’s clothing canvassers industry industry nearly entirely an which is dependent is thus and sales in operations upon purchases its interstate com- upon transportation.” and interstate merce Clothing Workers Amalgamated of America is a 125,000 composed of over organization men and making employed clothing. women Members or- are recognition Before ganized in local unions. this union and bitter strikes by employers long occurred, some of The union are described. has consistently which striven economic and improve general to social conditions of that flow from Benefits recognizing members. and co- with are realized manufacturers. operating it Description given Clothing Company’s oper- its raw material (nearly the sources of ations, all outside output. its j dispose to method used and Virginia), Virginia. beyond customers is sold to cent Eighty-two per and industry, firms in largest fifty among It is average the lowest paying group of that ten among wage. Richmond at employees of 1935 the
In the summer Work- Clothing Amalgamated a local formed plant at once management memberships. The ers and solicited permit would and it not declared opposition indicated the circumstances Hostile acts and employees join. employees are- of complaining or demotion discharge be- discharged or demoted all were It said described. “Inter- And further membership. cause of union clothing industry men’s by employers ference employees joining assisting labor the activities accept procedure and their refusal organizations to lead bargaining has led tends to strikes of collective disputes that burden and obstruct com- other labor In free thereof. those cases and the flow where the merce permitted organize freely have been and the bargain employers willing collectively, have been strikes have industrial unrest gradually disappeared, shown as where the Finding employer 19. But has taken the *29 have contrary position, strikes ensued that have resulted of in or cessation production total in substantial the fac- involved and obstruction to and burden tories upon the and garments flow of raw materials finished in interstate commerce.” employees of joined
The number who the union does general the of appear; not attitude employees towards the Company is not disclosed; union or the the of terms em- not at ployment are stated —whether will, by the day or Chapter the month. What the local was especially do seeking at time we not the know. appear not that, does either prior
It or subsequent to “Complaint,” has been any the there strike, disorder or any interfer- respondent’s factory,’ industrial strife at or its shipment or or of stoppage production ence with unfair at practices alleged merchandise. Nor that plant materially manufacture, its or had affected sale burdened or ob- distribution; materially affected, or affected, or the of products; structed flow burdened commerce, or flow of tended obstructed the interstate to do so. Board had Clothing
The concluded that Company respect employment discriminated in and and tenure in thereby discouraged membership union; had that with, it had interfered restrained and coerced its em- guaranteed in ployees rights by § violation National Labor Relations these acts occurred Act; states, among course and conduct of commerce immediately employees engaged and affect course commerce, conduct interstate lead tend to to labor disputes burdening obstructing such commerce flow free thereof. 1936, followed, 28, An order March which commanded eight discharged immediate reinstatement payment losses; of their also that the Company discharging should and desist discriminat- cease ing against employees because connections with the post notices, should etc. On the union, day same asking filed a petition Board enforcement order of Appeals (Second the United States Circuit Court Cir- cuit) New which was denied York, July at 1936.
VII. question us determine precise is whether Congress disclosed circumstances has power Labor Board what the commanded authorize the respond- otherwise, do. Stated ents to circumstances here by statute Congress direct could existing what the Board disquisitions General *30 concerning has ordered? en- Circum- minor, any, importance. if of actment are of power exercise as essential not treated stances disregarded. of be The record course, may, Board by these typical plainly presents in Nos. 422-23—a case— further discussion may we base properly essentials and disclosed. the circumstances there upon caused raw material to be relatively concern A small Virginia, converted Richmond, at plant to its shipped shipped thereafter clothing, product into this A members sought state. labor union outside the points plant at the and obtained some. among employees Company’s management opposed effort, this The discharged had discourage eight it who become order Company that The business so small members. factory its would have no material effect direct to close clothing. of commerce in The volume interstate upon joined the union is not dis- operatives who number wishes other are not closed; shown; is not a strike found. probability argument support the Board affirms: “Thus any specific validity application of the preventive depends this Act upon measures of whether industrial resulting from the practices particular strife in the enter- under consideration would be prise character which if power could control it Federal If occurred. strife could be enterprise controlled, certainly it could be prevented.” Congressional
Manifestly that view of power ex- would every it field of tend into almost human industry. With striking lucidity, fifty years ago, Kidd Pearson, v. 1, it declared: “If be U. S. held that the term [com- foreign and among merce nations the several states] regulation all includes the such manufactures as are subject of intended to be the commercial transactions in
95 the is future, deny it to impossible that it would also include all industries productive contemplate that the thing. same The result would be that Congress would be invested, the States, exclusion of the with the power regulate, only manufactures, not agriculture, but also horticulture, stock raising, domestic fisheries, mining —in short, every branch industry.” of human This doctrine full approval Co., found Knight United v. E. States C. 1, 12, 13; U. S. Poultry Schechter Corp. v. United States, supra, supra, and Carter v. Co., where Carter Coal the authorities are collected and applicable here principles are discussed.
In Knight’s Fuller, case Chief for the speaking Justice Court, said: “Doubtless the the power control manu- facture of given thing involves a certain the sense disposition, control secondary its this is a not but and sense; and primary although the exercise that power may result in bringing operation of commerce it, into it does not control play, only and affects it inci- dentally indirectly. and Commerce succeeds to manu- facture, and not a of it . part . . vital that It is independence power commercial and police delimitation how- power, them, and the between always recognized perplexing, ever sometimes should be for while one furnishes the observed, strongest union, the other is essential to the preservation bond autonomy required by of the States as our dual acknowledged evils, form of government; however grave urgent they may appear be, had better be run, than risk in the borne, them, be effort to suppress consequences by more serious resort to expedients constitutionality.” even doubtful we said: “In determining In Schechter’s case far how government may go federal controlling intrastate ground upon they transactions ‘affect’ interstate dis- necessary is a well-established commerce, there precise effects. The direct and indirect tinction between arise, but the as individual cases only line can be drawn . But . . where principle is clear distinction interstate transactions commerce upon of intrastate effect indirect, remain within such transactions merely con- If the clause were power. state commerce domain of all and transactions which enterprises to reach strued *32 interstate upon have an indirect effect could said to be would commerce, authority practi- federal embrace the authority the of people the of the cally all activities only concerns would by over its domestic exist the State Indeed, government. federal on such a of the sufferance the the of State’s theory, development even commercial to control.” subject be federal facilities would declared —“Whether the effect given Carter’s case of a always or or indirect is activity condition direct not determine. The word ‘direct’ the easy implies to that invoked or condition or blamed shall activity operate mediately, remotely, or collaterally— proximately —not effect. It connotes the to absence produce of an effi- intervening or And agency condition. cient extent logical effect bears no relation its to character. between a direct and an distinction indirect effect upon magnitude not turns, either cause or the upon the manner in effect, entirely but which the effect If brought production about. has been one man ton of coal intended single of a interstate sale and actually shipped, so sold and shipment, and affects inter- the effect indirectly, does state commerce not become by multiplying tonnage, the num- increasing direct adding expense men to the employed, or com- ber byor all business, combined.” plexities discharge interstate commerce effect on Any here, would indirect and shown be remote
97- will show. of the facts as consideration highest degree, discharged; were In ten men ten thousand No. 419 out of effect in The immediate only few. the other cases among all those factory be create discontent may which, turn, follow, may employed may a strike reducing ultimately may which re- production, result in interstate commerce. goods moving duce the volume of By progressively this chain indirect remote events reach finally legis- we the evil with which it is said the A lation under consideration undertakes deal. more remote and indirect interference with interstate commerce or a more powers definite invasion to the reserved if difficult, imagine. states not impossible, The Constitution recognizes still the existence of states with indestructible the Tenth Amendment powers; was supposed put beyond controversy. them are told Congress
We may protect the “stream commerce” and that who buys raw one material without the state, manufactures it therein, and ships the output *33 to another is state in that stream. Therefore it is said may he prevented be doing from anything may which interfere its flow.
This, too, goes beyond the constitutional limitations heretofore If a enforced. man raises cattle regularly and delivers them to a carrier for interstate may shipment, Congress prescribe the conditions under may which he employ discharge helpers on the ranch? The products pass daily a mine into interstate commerce; many things brought are to it from other states. Are the owners the miners within power of Congress in the miners’ tenure mill respect discharge? aMay prohibited from owner be closing his factory or discon- tinuing business his so because to do would stop the flow products plant and from his in interstate commerce? quitting
May factory be restrained from employees a body factory work because this will close the a a arson May commerce? thereby stop the flow of this a whenever would be made Federal offense factory con- If business cannot interefere with flow? such Congress com- may with the existing wage scale, tinue If an- ruling just of the Court mand a reduction? questions some of the suggest nounced is adhered these arise. certain to problems of com- theory if this of a “stream
And
continuous
duty
it become the
correct,
now defined
will
merce” as
every
to suppress
Government hereafter
the Federal
that
by
may cause a blockade
possibility
which
strike
since
Debs,
To this Co., affords ade- R. 150, S. an 249 U. Southwestern continuous stream shown No such quate reply. counsel assume. as that which these records reasonably which to hold ground is no on There raw materials come manufacturer, whose refusal a and whose factory than that of his other states bargain states, other regularly are carried to products manufacturing plant, his collectively with business, In such interstate commerce. directly affects or streams but two distinct movements there is not one raw first transportation. brings in interstate manufacture, Then follows there ends. material and Upon activity. completion this, and local separate *34 before, second distinct movement or stream and not go and the begins products in to other commerce interstate states. common for as well as Such is the course small large industries. It and unprecedented unreasonable say to upon clause Congress commerce confers power govern relations employers between in employees local Pratt, these activities. Supp. Stout v. 864. F. In case Schechter’s we condemned as by unauthorized the commerce respect clause assertion of federal in power of commodities which had come rest after interstate transportation. And, case, in Carter’s we Congress held power regulate respect lacked labor relations in of commodities before begun. interstate commerce has
It is gravely experience stated that if teaches an employer discourages membership “any organization any of kind” “in which participate, and which exists purpose whole or in part dealing employers concerning wages, grievances, disputes, rates hours of pay, employment work,” or conditions discontent follow a may may and this turn lead to strike, may as the outcome of a there be strike block stream interstate commerce. Therefore Congress may inhibit the discharge! Whatever effect may ultimately any upon cause of discontent have com- justify Congressional merce is far too indirect to regula- anything marriage, birth, may tion. Almost — death — fashion affect commerce. some
VIII. has Congress power appropriate means, That not Constitution, prohibited by prevent and ma- direct interference with the terial conduct interstate com- settled doctrine. But merce interference struck at not material, be direct some must mere possibility on contingent wholly events; uncertain there must impairment rights guaranteed. no A be state taxa- may property indirectly on but tion seriously affect the may it transportation; lay not cost direct tax upon *35 100 transportation. The first interstate receipts from effect,
an other direct. indirect was invoked This to interstate commerce power protect States, 221 S. Oil v. United U. in Standard Co. In Co., 221 106. U. S. United States v. American Tobacco sought monopolize to each of those cases a combination through purchase and restrain interstate commerce many en- consequent competing concerns large control The both manufacture and interstate commerce. gaged it by powerful and action sufficiently combination was dangerous that probability. success became a persistent so situation, are inappli- Here there is no such and the cases to There is no conspiracy in the cable circumstances. unless it can be said to exist interfere with commerce union. who members of the employees became among management its own plant operated by is a single There a alleged, discharge was the few offense, as only whose they be- department in the because production to within the broad union, coming a definition longed 2 by (6) of the Act. prescribed organization” "labor § any organization in which em- includes That definition and which exists participate purpose ployees dealing employers concerning in part or whole &c. wages, grievances, in this provides "Nothing of the Labor Act
Section — impede as to interfere with construed so Act shall-be to strike.” And it way right yet any dimmish discharge employee factory an a because ruled kind) organization may of a labor (any a member ishe may lead strike and this may which a discontent create commerce”; consequently in the “stream block a cause Thus the exempts inhibited. Act discharge may be may evil which counsel insist very ambit from its discharge caused an asso- from discontent result member, coercion of a permits but non-member ciation one. join inhibited Act relate to things Labor management of a manufacturing dis- plant something — subject tinct the authority commerce and abridged may state. And this not be because of some vague possibility of distant interference with commerce.
IX. & Texas R. Co. New Orleans v. Brotherhood Railway of Clerks, Steamship 548, & 281 U. S. is not controlling. Court, There the considering while an act lim definitely ited to engaged common carriers transporta interstate Congress tion over whose affairs has admittedly wide power, declared: “The invoke petitioners principle the States, declared in Adair v. United U. S. Kansas, v. 236 U. S.
Coppage 1, but these decisions are The inapplicable. Railway Labor Act of 1926 does not interfere with the normal exercise of the right of the car employees rier to its or to discharge select them. The right statute is not aimed at this of the employers but at right employees interference the of to have rep their choosing. of own As resentatives the carriers sub have ject to the no constitutional right to interfere Act of the making with the freedom their complain cannot selections, they of statute on con grounds.” stitutional supra, case, presented the
Adair’s question “May Con- — a criminal against make it offense gress the United tenth act section of the of States —as 1898 it does— officer of an interstate agent or carrier, for an having full premises authority carrier, in the to discharge an simply from service because of his employee membership The answer was organization?” labor no. a “While, rights of already suggested, liberty and as property against Constitution deprivation with- guaranteed subject of to such process law, out due are reasonable re- general as the common good may welfare straints government require, it is not within functions —at parties least the absence contract between the —to compel any person against the course of his business and his will or retain the of an- accept personal to services other, any his to compel person, against will, to perform personal person for of a right another. to services sell upon his labor such terms he in its proper is, as deems essence, right the same as the labor purchaser to he prescribe upon the conditions which such accept will from the sell offering right labor it. So the person employee quit employer, the service of for the right employer, whatever is the same reason, as reason, dispense with the such whatever services of legal right of employee. It was the the defendant might unwise such a course have been— Adair —however being of his a discharge Coppage because member right it the legal as was organization, Coppage, if so—however unwise such a on he saw fit to do course *37 the service in which he might quit have been —to part his employed per- because the defendant engaged, was some members a labor In organization. who were not of sons employer employee and the have all such particulars any legislation that disturbs that right, equality with the arbitrary liberty interference an equality is can government legally justify no contract which of the statute under which provision “The free land.” must held convicted be to be repugnant was the defendant by not Amendment as embraced nor to Fifth Congress regulate to interstate com- power within the of regulating guise interstate com- merce, but under arbitrarily this case it to applied sanctions merce as personal liberty as well as the illegal an invasion defendant Adair.” property right Kansas, case, Adair held that following the v. Coppage an require misdemeanor to it a statute, declaring a state to to member of a employee agree not become a was organization employment, the time of during his of the Fourteenth repugnant process to the due clause Amendment. right and includes is fundamental contract one willing with whom
privilege selecting those unduly right assume contractual relations. This de- A upheld. Act now owner is abridged private freely prived power manage his own property are manufacturing operations those to his selecting whom done lawfully be be entrusted. We think cannot this like here disclosed. those circumstances has Congress It seems clear to us that transcended powers granted. LABOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS v. NATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD. Argued 9, 10, February April 1937.
No. 365. 1937. Decided