National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

stresses fact that of the The Government each dis- knowledge must have acted with tributors that some granted would grant all others or had Interstate’s knowledge merely demand. But such to each notice successfully compete if it was of them for the first Texas cities it important business must meet run competing terms of distributors or lose the business of compete successfully Interstate. could by grant- It only to Interstate ing injuring exclusive licenses subse- quent refusing licenses, houses them course run —a clearly lawful, the less drastic doing thing agree- —or of its ing protect good pictures by will putting necessary severely burdensome restrictions exhibitors, I subsequent run which upon equally think lawful. McReynolds and Mr. Justice Justice Butler

Mr. join opinion. in this LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. FAN

NATIONAL METALLURGICAL STEEL CORP. January 12, February 27, Argued 436. 1939. Decided 1939. No. Fahy, Charles whom Mr. with Solicitor Jack- General son, and Messrs. Charles A. Horsky, Watts, Robert B. A. Laurence Knapp, and Wolf, Mortimer B. and Ruth Weyand were brief, on for petitioner. Benjamin V. whom Messrs. Swiren, Max -with

Mr. brief, for on the H. Block were Sidney Becker and respondent.

247. Hughes opinion Justice delivered Mr. Chief the Court. set an order aside Appeals Court of

The Circuit requiring respondent Labor Relations Board National found to be in violation practices from labor desist and to reinstatement Act offer Labor Relations National with While pay. back discharged employees to certain under, review,' Board’s order are portions the other authority relates to the question presented principal the employees to reinstate require respondent of Board to the in of their unlawful conduct discharged because were who “sit- in a what is called property seizing respondent’s strike.” down Metallurgical is Corporation,

Respondent, Fansteel Illinois, in the manufacture Chicago, North engaged at from No question made rare metals. products sale of and relation to operations as to the intimate of its is raised of upon effect that commerce interstate commerce or the practices corporation with which unfair labor n that findings show charged. Board Lodge employees of 193Ga group organized summer auspices Amalgamated a committee of the under the Tin of 'North and -Workers Iron, Association Steel to en- America; spy” that a “labor employed Union and his espionage employment within the gage 1936;' that on’ until about December 1, was continued superintendent was re- September 1936, respondent’s to meet with a committee of 'the Union and the quested' superintendent required that should con- the committee sist only employees years’ of five standing; that a com- mittee, so a constituted, presented contract relating to conditions; that working superintendent objected to “closed-shop check-off provisions” announced that it was respondent’s policy to recognition refuse unions; “outside” that on September 21, 1936, the super- intendent refused to confer with the committee in which an organizer “outside” had included; been that mean- while, later, respondent’s representatives sought have a union” “company set but up, attempt proved abortive; from November, 1936, to January, 1937, the superintendent required the Union president work in a adjoining room the superintendent’s office with him purpose keeping from the other away workers; that while in September, 1936, the Union did have a not majority production and maintenance employees, an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, by Febru- ary 155 of 17, 1937, respondent’s 229 joined unit had the Union and had designated it their collective bargaining representative; date, that on that committee of the Union met twice with the superintend- ent, bargain who refused with the Union as to rates of pay, hours and conditions of employment, the refusal deal-, being upon ground that respondent would with an “outside” union.

.Shortly after the second meeting in the .afternoon of February 17th Union committee upon decided a “sit- by taking down strike” and holding respond- over two of “key” buildings. ent’s thereupon occupied These were by employees. Work about the stopped and re- plant operations. mainder also Employees ceased not participate who did desire to permitted were leave, and a number of Union members who were night on the shift and did not arrive for work until after the seizure join did not their buildings. fellow members inside the At about six in the evening o’clock the superintendent, counsel, respondent’s officials and police accompanied and that the men buildings demanded each of went “there- respondent’s counsel refused, and They leave. that all the men in loud tones announced upon seizure and retention discharged for the were plant occupy buildings men continued buildings.” brought fellow members Their February 26, 1937. until stoves, cigarettes supplies. and other blankets, food, them obtained from the state respondent February 18th, On surrender the men to injunction requiring an order court (he obey the order and The men refused premises. Febru- for was on contempt served a writ of attachment submit, a pitched the men’s refusal to ary Upon 19th. successfully at- resisted the and the men battle ensued Efforts arrest them. the sheriff to evict and tempt Depart- on of the United States part at mediation un- Illinois proved of Labor and ment Governor with an increased February On 26th the sheriff availing. time, and this attempt made a further deputies force of were ousted and un- placed the men battle, after another ' eventually and Most were fined der of them arrest. injunction. violating given jail sentences regaining possession on undertook Respondent to re- gradually began. operations, production By sume and restaffing approximately complete. March 12th the. strikers, including who had many A number of the large occupation buildings, in the in- participated were dividually solicited to return to work with back pay but recognition of Union. Some accepted without reinstated; offer were others refused to return unless recognition were union and mass reinstatement, there at the hearing still out time of the before the were New men were hired to fill the positions thosé Board. on strike. remaining the Union was inactive.

Meanwhile On March refused, requests, 3d 5th there which were consider the meetings recognition to of the Union for bargaining. collective There was no request collective for reinstatement of 'the strikers. all The position all the who did practically go strikers .back, who were named filed with complaint the Board, was they “that stay were determined to out until the Union reached a with respondent.” settlement

Early April labor organization a known Rare as. Metal America, Workers of Local 1, No. was organized among respondent’s employees. There meeting was respondent’s buildings one of on April 15th, which was attended about 200 employees, and the re- balloting in a sulted vote of 185 to 15 in favor of the formation of an “independent” organization. Another meeting soon after for the election held of officers. Respondent accorded these efforts various forms of support. Board concluded that the Rare Metal Workers of Amer- ica, Local No. respondent’s was the result of the “anti- union campaign” and that had dominated and interfered with its formation and administration.

Upon findings of these basis and its conclusions of law, the Board made order directing respondent de- interfering employees sist from with its in the exercise self-organization their right to and to bargain collectively through of their own representatives choosing guaran- as teed in 7 of from Act; § dominating interfering with formation or administration of the Rare Metal Workers Local America, No. or1, any other labor or- ganization of its employees or contributing support there- to; from refusing bargain collectively with the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Tin Steel and Work- ers of North America, Lodge 66, as the exclusive rep- resentative of the employees described. The Board also ordered the following affirmative action which it was found would policies” “effectuate the of the Act; —that is, Arqal- upon request, bargain collectively with the above; offer, upon appli- stated gamated Association went Febru- on strike on who to the cation, and full rein- thereafter, “immediate 1937, and ary 17, with dis- pay, former back positions,” statement to their all hired since that to necessary, persons date; if missing, Rare Metal Workers of recognition from withdraw all a 1, representative employ- Local No. America, with as to dealing respondent purpose ees for “completely and to disestablish” that or- questions, labor representative; and to notices of ganization post as such N. L. R. 930. compliance. 5 B. in respondent engaged

The Board found that had not in hire by regard unfair labor “discrimination practices order in or employment” “encourage tenure dis- in labor ac- courage membership any organization,” and (3)8 cordingly complaint under of the Act was dis- § Id. missed. respondent’s petition, Appeals

On the Circuit Court of order, 375, set aside Board’s 98 F. 2d and this Court granted certiorari, 305 U. S. 590. Board practices.

First. The labor con- unfair —The and cluded that anti-union statements actions” “the September 1936, Sep- on and superintendent of the campaign “the 21, 1936, by tember to introduce into the plant company union,” by a “the isolation of the Union president from contact with his fellow employees,” employment and use a “labor spy,” respondent interfered with its employees, had restrained and self-organi- in exercise of their them, coerced Act, in of the and thus had guaranteed engaged zation § practice (1) labor under 8- of the in an unfair Act. § fact in Owing September, 1936, to the that Union -the majority employees not have a appro-, did that it pídate unit, precluded the Board held from finding practices refusing unfair labor bargain col- lectively time, at that but the Board found that there

was such a refusal on when the Union February 17, 1937, majority did have a of the in the employees appropriate unit, and that this constituted a (5). violation of 8§ supported by findings

These conclusions are of the Board and the latter this relation have substantial in the support evidence. discharge illegal

Second. The con- seizing holding in' respondent’s building».— duct The Board does not now contend that there was not discharge February 17th when the men real on re- possession. discharge clearly 'was fused to surrender proved. dispute

Nor is as to the causi- there basis for discharge. Representatives demanded leave, the men and on their refusal announced they and retention of discharged “for the seizure were the a announce- buildings.” general The fact that it was plant to men in the who applicable all the thus ment. refused to detract from the effect of leave does not the in in law. discharge either fact or questioned Nor is it that the seizure and of retention respondent’s' property were unlawful. It' a high- was proceeding legal right. handed without shadow of It subject became the of denunciation the state court the law, resulting jail under state in fines and sentences for defiance of order final the court’s to vacate and in a respondent complainant injunc- decree for as the the tion suit. part

This conduct on the of employees the manifestly good discharge cause for their gave the unless National abrogates right Labor Relations Act the of the employer employ illegally to refuse to retain his those who take property. of possession and hold his the Board authority require to the rein- Third. of discharged. employees thus con- statement of —The (1) Board in substance are these: That of the tentions practices respondent the unfair labor of led to the strike ground and thus furnished for requiring the reinstate- ment of strikers; (2) That under of the terms go Act who on strike of an because unfair . practice labor retain their status as employees and are to be considered as such despite discharge for illegal con- duct; (3) That the Board was entitled to order rein- statement reemployment or in order to “effectuate the policies” of the Act.

(1) For unfair practices labor respondent of the Act provided remedy. Interference the summer and fall right of 1936 self-organization at .with could once have subject been the of complaint to the Board. The remedy same was available to the employees when col- bargaining lective refused on February 1937. But reprehensible as was that conduct respondent, ground is no that it saying made an there deprived outlaw it of legal rights its possession protection and of its property. The employees had the they but had no to strike license commit acts employer’s plant. violence or seize their We may put questions on side contested circum- one. injury plant stances extent to the contents its in the the men -efforts of to resist eviction. The seizure buildings wrong holding apart was itself a the. acts, sabotage. from But in legal aspect possession lawful ousting from is not essen- the owner from tially upon different assault an. officers an employing company, or the seizure and conversion of its goods, despoiling of property its or other unlawful compliance to force with order To acts démands. conduct the a justify such of existence because labor of an practice unfair dispute put or of labor would be to premium legal on resort to force instead of a remedies and and principles of law order at to subvert lie which society. of foundations ex- respondent’s practices As unfair labor afforded no holding buildings, respond- of its cuse for the seizure rights, their rights ent had normal of redress. Those right discharge included the scope, most obvious say To that employ. from its wrongdoers damages recover or to court to could resort to the state discharge those powerless but was procure punishment, seizure would be to create for the unlawful responsible warrant which is no for there an anomalous distinction Labor National it found in the terms can be unless provisions which the to the Act. We turn Relations Board invokes. in National Labor Relations Act

(2) construing In 1, 45, 301 U. S. Laughlin Corp., Steel & v. Jones Board the normal not interfere with it “does 46, we said that employer em exercise to select its right “may them”; employer discharge or to ployees or intimidate coerce its not, right, under cover of that rep self-organization employees respect with to their Board hand, on the other is resentation, and, authority pretext make its interference entitled to that right discharge with when right exercised for other than such coercion.” reasons intimidation and See, also, Associated v. Labor Relations Press National . Board, Compare 301 U. & 103, S. 132 Texas New Or Brotherhood, 281 Vir 548, 571; leans R. Co. v. U. S. ginian System Railway v. Federation No. Co. U. 515, 559. S.

It is under apparent that construction the Act that had there strike, been no been guilty had of unlawful seizing conduct in or committing depredations upon the their property employer,- conduct would have good been for discharge, discharge reason on that- ground not be purpose would- for the intimidating coercing employees respect with their of self- organization or representation, or because-of lawful

255 upon independent rest an would but activity, union adequate basis. (c) authority § under exercising in Board,

But the here that the status insists “employees,” reinstate to un- discharge for despite continued, employees of the term of the definition conduct, lawful virtue term definition the (3). that “employee” By §in 2. includes a consequence work has ceased individual whose

“any or labor dispute current with, any of, or connection not ob- has and who' practice, labor any because of unfair equivalent substantially regular. other tained : . .” employment, statute. argument misconstrues the

We think that to Congress intended conclude that to We are unable employ re- in their employers persons to retain compel who conduct, invest those of their unlawful gardless —to for acts discharge from immunity on with an go strike employer’s against property, violence or trespass remained they had enjoyed not have they which would question of the constitutional from the Apart at work. say enough sort, enactment of it validity an intention be some should found legislative that such a We find no such expression. definite and unmistakable provision. cited expression Congress is reason purpose of We the true think upon was intent Congress protection ably clear. to the self-organization right employees for representatives choosing own of their selection of. National or coercion. bargaining collective without restraint Laughlin & Steel bor La Relations Board v. Jones To the em Corp., protection, 33. assure that supra, p. his be discharge ployer is not .permitted bargain agitation collective activity cause of union Board, v. National Labor ing. Associated Press Relations thus is lawful supra. conduct. protected conduct Congress recognized strike, also the em —that ployees lawfully work could cease at their own volition failure because of employer the the meet their de to 13 provides mands. Section that Act nothing in the “shall be so or construed as to interfere impede with dimmish in way the right recog to strike.” But this nition of right “the to strike” plainly contemplates a strike, lawful exercise of unquestioned right the to —the work. quit As said in we National Labor Board Relations Co., & Mackay Radio Telegraph v. U. 304 S. 333, “if dispute men in strike connection with a current labor action their is not to be construed renunciation as a employment the relation they employees and remain for remedial There purposes specified the in the Act.” thus is abundant of 2 (3) § with opportunity operation for the construing out it as in countenancing lawlessness or as tended to support employees of violence against acts the employer’s the property by making impossible it employer upon to terminate independent the relation that ground.

Here the strike was illegal inception prose- cution. found, As Board by the it was initiated de- the cision of the Union “to committee take over and hold two respondent’s ‘key’ of the buildings.” It was pursuant to decision the men occupied buildings stopped. work This not exercise “the to strike” to which Act referred. It was not a mere quitting of work and statement of grievances in exer- of pressure recognized cise lawful. as It was an illegal buildings seizure in order prevent by their use employer a lawful manner and by thus acts of force violence compel the employer to submit. When the employees to that resorted of compulsion sort they took a position protection outside the of the statute and accepted the risk of the termination of their employment legal rights of the from exercise upon grounds aside designed to conserve. which the statute was valid (3) The. contends that its order is under Board whether the men re- “regardless of the terms of the Act its contention employees.” mained The Board bases on require (c), § 10 conferred general authority, affirmative action will employer to take such action, the Act. Such it is policies” “effectuate the of those not reinstatement argued, may only embrace been whose has continued virtue status as “reemployment” requirement (3), § but also a employed. those who have ceased to be authority require affirmative action to “effec- un- tuate the of the Act is broad but it policies” in limited. It has the essential limitations which inhere very the of policies the Act which the Board invokes. in Thus Edison Co. v. National Labor Re- Consolidated Board, lations authority U. S. we held that the to order affirmative action did not far confer go so as to jurisdiction upon the Board inflict punitive enabling to the is employer any it choose because he penalty may engaged in practices, though unfair labor even the Board is opinion policies may of the that the of the Act be effec- by tuated an such order. We held that the to com- power mand affirmative action remedial, punitive, is not and is to be in aid of authority exercised the Board’s to restrain violations and as a means of or removing avoiding the consequences of violation consequences where those are of a kind to thwart the of purposes the Act. repeat

We that the fundamental policy of Act the is safeguard, to rights self-organization the of and collective bargaining, and thus by promotion the peace industrial to remove obstructions free the flow commerce as defined in the Act. not in There is a line the statute to warrant the conclusion policies that part it is of the to resort to encourage employees force Act'

of the law of the land. On the con- violence in defiance set- promote the Act peaceful trary, purpose the for the by legal remedies disputes providing tlements may Elections be or- employees’ rights. the invasion of desired what are representatives decide dered to in units determined appropriate majority labor of unfair prevention To secure Board. may be filed and heard complaints by employers, practices is, affirmative action that author- The and orders.made. effective the redress of make these remedies ized tois rights, self-organization to assure them employees’ to license them to representation, and freedom from the protect appro- acts or to them commit tortious are of unlawful conduct. We consequences priate reem- for reinstatement or provide opinion .employees the acts which the Board guilty of ployment of instance would not committed this have been finds to' Act'but di- any policy effectuate would only not plan peaceable to make abortive its rectly tend procedure. point ques- that the

What have said also meets we would reemployment or ef- whether reinstatement tion of the Act is committed to deci- policies fectuate subject Board in the exercise of its discretion sion of the may not be “arbi- its action only the limitation tO' recognizes Board capricious.” trary, unreasonable reemployment .“many that in situations” reinstatement proper, for acts not be but discharge illegal would after proper was in this instance. For Board that it the insists with that given disagree have we view. the reasons we hardly be presented case could We think that clearer' may be deemed to be com- that, discretion whatever and were the its limits transcended Board, mitted to the under review. order was respondent when that, stresses the fact

The Board buildings of its to resume obtain and possession able to reemployment many to of men it offered operations, con- The contention in the strike. participated who had do in voluntarily legally and employer may fuses what an what Board and of selection right the exercise of his announcing the re- reopening compel. In entitled of men who large belief that a number spondent its stated were plant compelled part had taken the seizure ap- and that intimidation through to do coercion and so would receive from such men plications reemployment for the state- challenges favorable consideration. The Board rehiring appli- limited its to such respondent ment that every- to evidence points showing cants. The Board for reemployment during period one who applied two taken back without condition restaffing except was years advanced in not re- employees who were and were testimony solely reason, instated for that thirty-seven that at least were rehired superintendent in the sit-down.” “who had been respec- unnecessary We find it to consider detail the respondent’s reemployment, tive contentions as to offer unlawful think that its action did mot alter the we in that as- respondent’s rights character of strike or ab- pect. point respondent The is that stood important engaged solved of those the “sit-down” conduct from them, but any duty reemploy exigencies its business nevertheless free to consider the doing if it it was reemployment to offer chose. In so exercising normal select its simply employees. requirement employ reinstatement Fourth. oj seized and held ees who aided and abetted those who in this persons is a buildings. group fourteen —There no1 buildings do who not within hence class were within the of dis- appear to have been announcement 260

charge, but who went on strike and fall within the order for reinstatement. The Board separate made no findings respect with particular to these persons and refers tous the evidence to show their relation to the transactions under review. This, however, sufficiently appears in the stipulation of facts, to which the Board was a party, naming in paragraph persons these fourteen and de- scribing their conduct as follows:

“All of the following men were employees of the com- pany on February 17, 1937, but did not participate the seizure and retention of the building, but aided and abetted men within buildings said 3 and 5 in the retention of the said buildings by soliciting, procuring and delivering of food, bedding, cigarettes, stoves, or other supplies, or in some manner, other and thereby as- sisted the said men in buildings 3 and 5 to remain therein contrary injunctional order and injunction writ of heretofore mentioned; that all of the said men named in this paragraph had knowledge actual of the issuance injunctional the said order and writ of injunction ordering and directing the men in buildings 3 and 5 to vacate the same, and that their activities aiding abetting the men in buildings 3 and 5 were done with a view to and for purpose of assisting the said men remain in the said buildings after the issuance of the injunctional said order and injunction writ of and with knowledge thereof. None of the men named in this par- agraph discharged by were the company on February 17, thereafter, and none of these men were recalled to work the company upon the resumption of plant operations shortly February after 26th, 1937:” (the follow). names

It cannot be independently said that of the Act re- spondent bound reinstate those who had thus aided and' abetted the “sit-down” strikers in defying the court’s order. If it be assumed 2 (3) virtue of § provision “employees,” still had the status they reinstatement. Whether automatically provide did not the application could it must turn on the Board order “such require Board to empowering the provision including employees” reinstatement of action, affirmative thus of the Act. We are policies” will “effectuate the as think already discussed and we question returned to the abettors, likewise respect that in that these aiders and in than the unlawful are no better case guilty conduct, of for ground We find no “sit-down” strikers themselves. which the Act concluding any policy that there of in justifies ordering Board in reinstatement such the circumstances. persons are em- apparently nine other There

Fifth. which within the order as to braced of reinstatement respondent special objections. seven, As interposes objects ground reinstatement respondent upon the the union they showing that were inefficient and that no of of them was two activity by any others, made. As to to re- respondent they request that contends refused its work that their any places turn to without conditions and were filled. accordingly

With to these nine and to a miscel- respect persons, including others as to whom group laneous of five three of com- the trial examiner recommended dismissal the findings plaint, supplied specific upon the Board has not in its points the to sustain order. controversy opinion Ap- are of the that the Circuit Court of We peals setting err in aside requirement did not the of reinstatement. requirement bargain

Sixth. The that respondent shall Lodge 66 Amalgamated with Associa- collectively tion exclusive representative employees as the unit. described Respondent 12, resumed work about March 1937. The was made on March 1938. In Board’s order view of in the change situation reason of the valid dis- .the charge of “sit-down” strikers and filling posi- with we for men, tions new see basis no conclusion resumption after Lodge work 66 was the choice a majority respondent’s purpose bargaining. of collective The Board’s order properly re- respondent interfering to desist from man- quires employees'in with the exercise their ner through rep- self-organization bargain collectively and to own But it is a different resentatives of their choosing.^ Lodge matter to treat require' If representative. it is altered circumstances such a employees, 66 is Lodge choice of contended question authority the Board has abundant to settle the by requiring an election. requirement respondent with- The shall

Seventh. America, Rare Metal Workers draw recognition all from of Local 1.No. insisting presents strong protest,

While 1 Metal the Rare Workers was that Local of No. resumed, work was we employees after free choice of the evidence that there not substantial say cannot organization brought about this formation of respondent contrary of to the efforts through promotion and that the of the (2), 8 we think order of provision § should be sustained. Whether Rare in respect Board this 1, Local No. other America, Workers of Metal majority employ- choice of the is the organization, by determined proceedings unit can be in proper ees Board. open to the in order contained Para- Board’s

The provisions sub- (b), Paragraph 2, and (a) 1, subdivisions graph 2, and subdivisions Paragraph (e) and (d), division to the first-mentioned refer provisions, far these so as (f) dismissing charge of the Paragraph order the final and

263 The other pro- are sustained. (3) Act, 8 § under set aside. the order are visions of is modi- Appeals the Circuit Court of judgment The as is affirmed. accordingly and modified fied and

Modified Affirmed. consid- part took no Mr. Justice Frankfurter this case. and eration .decision Stone, concurring in part. Mr. Justice holds as Court’s decision in much of the I concur so order authority to statutory without that the Board was discharged on were who of those reinstatement on solely But I rest this conclusion 17, 1937. February the National (c) 10 (3) § § the construction given Board is By (c) Act. § Labor Relations only those employment in their to reinstate authority order, its the Board made Before “employees.” who are dis- their lawful by reason employees, respondent’s which such, status as lost their cause, charge had to them under preserved have been would otherwise §2(3). Act, purpose its Relations Labor National pro- operative preamble are disclosed

scope Congressional of. reports explained visions and No. enactment, Report recommending its committees Cong., 74th Labor, Education and Committee on Senate Labor, Committee on House No. Sess.; Report 1st securing peaceable aimed at Sess., is Cong., 74th 1st unfair prevention disputes of labor settlement him by requiring employer and labor practices employees. with his Since one collectively bargain this rein- Act to secure end is thé by the adopted means action of the discretionary National statement, by the when unfair labor Board, employees Labor Relations practices have caused them to cease it work, was neces- sary to provide they not should lose their status as employees by reason of that fact. This was accom- plished by 2 (3), § provides: which “The term ‘employee', shall include . . . any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connec- tion with, any current labor dispute because of labor practice. unfair . . .”

Having in purposes mind the of the Act and the end sought by the enactment I section, of this think its fair meaning is that attributed to it the Senate Committee Report, supra, pp. 6-7, which declared: “The bill principle thus observes the that men do: not lose their right employees to be considered' for the purposes of this merely by refraining bill collectively from work during . controversy. course of labor . . And to hold that a worker who an because of unfair labor practice discharged gone has been or locked out or on strike longer employee, give legal is no an would be to sanction illegal deny to an act and to redress to the injured thereby.” individual

But it not because preserves does the section follow they this where have ceased work by dispute of a labor or unfair labor practice, reason language depriving employer is to be read as purport withdraw, which the statute does not right, his relationship employer-employee terminate the for rea- stoppage with the of work dissociated because sons which language saves the practices. unfair labor ceased work Status for those who have be- employee does embrace also practices cause of labor unfair wholly their status for a those who lost different have practices which the discharge reason —their unlawful Act not countenance. does

265 nothing Act, There is in the read whole, as a to indi- purpose, cate such a 2 language (3) there is no in § I directed to such an end. Congress cannot attribute to 2 adoption in (3), explained it as was § Report, purpose Senate Committee to cut off employer discharge employees of an to who have de- them, stroyed factory reemploy his and to refuse to if that for his If real reason action. a plainer indica- tion purpose given of such a had been by language 2 I (3), thought § should have it of sufficiently dubious constitutionality require language us to construe its if that otherwise, reasonably done, could it leaving be Congress say so, language, unmistakable if it really impose duty meant to on the employer.

As to the fourteen who aided and abetted strike, the sit-down but who I discharged, were think they retained their status under (3), § power power Board had to reinstate them. Whether that should be was a matter committed exercised to the discretion, Board’s not ours. respects I concur with

In other the decision off the Court. Reed, dissenting Justice in part.

Mr. with the agrees This Court conclusion of the Labor respondent guilty Board that of unfair labor strike, campaigning to the for a com- practices, prior isolating president, pany union, making, union anti-union through superintendent, statements, It spy. accepts a labor also the Board’s con- employing pre-strike further violation clusion that there was Labor Relations Act refusal to bar- the Board questions power None gain collectively. redress employees as a means of striking reinstate important while practices. issue for unfair labor is employee, by narrow. an or out an Can on strike let unfair em- practice, discharged, by labor be an finally, ployer ineligible so the as to be for reinstatement under act?

The glows feebly apart the fire issue so stated from objective of it controversy. may permit But a more appraisal than by to examine it when illustrated conduct part on the “a employees, put of which is thought the premium prin- on resort to force” and to subvert “the ciples of of law and order which at the foundations lie society.” issue need disputed None on either side of the suspected of en- “countenancing lawlessness,” be of or couraging “violence in defiance of employees to resort to the law of land.” does not Disapproval the of sit-down of the that an logically compel acceptance theory the from striking employer power employee has the to bar his protection Labor the Act. protect

The in an effort to Labor Act was enacted interruptions labor dis- interstate from commerce the putes. object through prohibition sought This was the practices labor, certain sanc- deemed unfair to adopted included rein- prohibitions tions to enforce the status employees. statement of the To assure individuals changed strikers from was employee term beyond act, the the protection the ceased defined to whose work has “any include individual any current with, or in consequence of, as a connection .” labor . . dispute practice unfair labor or because (3), July 5, 1935. Without this assurance Act of § employee striking protection act, continued beyond pale protection of its put would be- quickly em- Court, by by discharge. As now construed cause, or any striker, with without royer may discharge with long discharge not used to interfere so as the easily bargaining. Friction self-organization collective readily con- give rise to engenuered may labor strife by from duct, nose-thumbing sabotage, give which will grounds fair discharge occasion for on other than those prohibited by the Labor Act. sought language

The clear Congress by eliminate ill feeling by provision just this source of prolific interpreted in quoted should be accordance with which striker for language continuing eligibility of a regardless of conduct reinstatement action striker or employer. constitutional problem involved from in- such a conclusion is not different the one in compelling employer volved an to reinstate an em- discharged activity. for union is here no ployee, There protection activity. for unlawful Every punishment compelled which law still remains obedience only officers. is the act of hands of the ceas- peace It ing work a current labor unfair labor dispute involving practices suspends period, necessary not now to de- termine, the the rela- right employer an to terminate tion. interference normal exercise of The with the discharge only necessity to the of pro- extends tecting relationship industrial strife. point made employer that an should be

compelled employee reemploy an guilty, perhaps, of sabotage. depends upon It This is the circumstances. charges function of weigh the Board to and counter- charges the adjustment and determine most conducive to certainly industrial peaee. Courts should not interfere with the normal action of bodies in such administrative n Here management circumstances. both labor and had erred respective in their grievously conduct. It cannot be said to be unreasonable to restore both to their former sit-down, status. Such apply. restoration would to the strikers striking employees and those who aided and abetted them.

I am of view the provisions of order of ordering an offer Board of reinstatement the em- discussed above should be re-

ployees sustained. As the mainder order is affected the determination upon wholly eonclusiofas, this issue but not controlled expressed requirements no as to the other opinion is the order.

bin. Black Justice in this dissent. concurs v. EICHHOLZ PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION O F MISSOURI et al. February 1, February Argued 367. 1939. Decided 1939.

No.

Case Details

Case Name: National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Feb 27, 1939

Citation: 306 U.S. 240

Docket Number: 436

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS