279 National Labor Relations Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 88

• Decision Date: 07 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 88,88
• Citation: 9 L.Ed.2d 279,83 S.Ct. 312,371 U.S. 224
• Parties: . 9 L.Ed.2d 279 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. RELIANCE FUEL OIL CORPORATION
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

371 U.S. 224

83 S.Ct. 312.

9 L.Ed.2d 279

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v RELIANCE FUEL OIL CORPORATION.

No. 88.

Argued Dec. 3, 1962.

Decided Jan. 7, 1963.

Louis F. Claiborne, New Orleans, La., for petitioner.

S. H. Borenkind, New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, respondent herein, was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. Jurisdiction before the Board was predicated upon the fact that Reliance, a New York distributor of fuel oil whose operations were local,¹ purchased within the State a 'substantial amount' of fuel oil and related products from the Gulf Oil Corporation, a supplier concededly engaged in interstate commerce. Most of the products sold to Reliance by Gulf were delivered to Gulf from without the State of New York and prior to sale and delivery to Reliance were stored, without segregation as to customer, in Gulf's tanks located within the State. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, Reliance had gross sales in excess of $500,000² and, during the calendar year 1959, it purchased in excess of $650,000 worth of fuel oil and related products from Gulf.

The Board adopted its trial examiner's findings that the operations of Reliance 'affected' commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the unfair labor practices found tended 'to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce * * *.' 129 N.L.R.B. 1166, 1171, 1182. The Court of Appeals reversed, 2 Cir., 297 F.2d 94, because, in its view, the record before the Board did not adequately demonstrate the existence of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Board so that it might 'take further evidence and make further findings on the manner in which a labor dispute at Reliance affects or tends to affect commerce.' The only issue before this Court is whether on the record before it the Board properly found that it had jurisdiction to enter an order against Reliance; the substantive findings as to the existence of the unfair labor practices are not here in dispute.

Under § 10(a) of the Act, the Board is empowered 'to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in section 8 of this title) affecting commerce.' Section 2(6) defines 'commerce' to mean 'trade, traffic commerce, transportation, or communication among the * * * States * * *' and § 2(7) declares:

'The term 'affecting commerce' means in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.'

This Court has consistently declared that in passing the National Labor Relations Act, Congress intended to and did vest in the Board the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 3, 77 S.Ct. 598, 599, 609, 1 L.Ed.2d 601; Polish National Alliance of United States of North America v. National Labor Relations Board, 322 U.S. 643, 647—648, 64 S.Ct. 1196, 1198—1199, 88 L.Ed. 1509; National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 607, 59 S.Ct. 668, 672, 83 L.Ed. 1014. Compare Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468, 480, 75 S.Ct. 480, 487, 99 L.Ed. 546. The Act establishes a framework within which the Board is to determine 'whether proscribed practices would in...