Howell Chevrolet Co v. National Labor Relations Board
| Decision Date | 14 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 34,34 |
| Citation | 98 L.Ed. 215,346 U.S. 482,74 S.Ct. 214 |
| Parties | HOWELL CHEVROLET CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Erwin Lerten, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
The petitioner Howell Chevrolet Company retails Chevrolet automobiles and parts in Glendale, California. After hearings, the National Labor Relations Board found Howell guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with its employees and intimidating them in various ways in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.1 An appropriate order was issued. 95 N.L.R.B. 410. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board's order, 204 F.2d 79, rejecting the contention that the Act could not be applied to Howell. On similar facts the Sixth Circuit held that the Labor Board had no jurisdiction over a local Ford automobile dealer. National Labor Relations Board v. Bill Daniels, Inc., 202 F.2d 579. We granted certiorari to consider the single question presented by petitioner—whether the Act is applicable to retail automobile dealers like Howell. 345 U.S. 955, 73 S.Ct. 940.
Sections 10(a) and 2(7) of the Labor Act empower the Board to prevent 'any person' from adversely 'affecting commerce' by unfair labor practices 'tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.' The Board found that Howell's unfair labor practices tended to do this. Among others, the following facts underlie that finding:
Howell bought its new Chevrolets from a General Motors assembly plant located in California and its spare parts and accessories were delivered to it from General Motors warehouses in California. Forty-three percent of all this merchandise was manufactured in other states and shipped into California for assembly or distribution. During 1949 Howell's purchases from General Motors exceeded $1,000,000.
Howell's local retail establishment was closely supervised by General Motors. Sweeping control of the business was reserved by General Motors in a 'Direct Dealer Selling Agreement.' Howell had to sign this agreement to get his 'non-exclusive privilege of selling new Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis' and 'parts and accessories.' The agreement required Howell to make varied and detailed reports about his business affairs, to devote full time to Chevrolet...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Maryland v. Wirtz
...Cutters, etc., Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20, 77 S.Ct. 604 (1957). See also, Howell Chevrolet Co. v. N. L. R. B., 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214, 98 L.Ed. 215 (1953). If the National Labor Relations Board may regulate the acts of the employer toward each employee of th......
-
Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd.
...at page 226, 60 S.Ct. 493. In National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 1953, 204 F.2d 79, 86, affirmed, 1953, 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214, in which the Board set aside an election, this Court "The processing of a representation petition, however, is a matter in which t......
-
NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium
...even if uncontradicted, National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), aff'd, 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214, 98 L.Ed. 215 (1953), and the examiner is entitled to make such a determination solely on the basis of his evaluation of the witnesses' demeanors.......
-
Perry Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...1953) 208 F.2d 230, 231; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co. (9th Cir. 1953) 204 F.2d 79, 85, aff'd. (1953) 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214, 98 L.Ed. 215; N. L. R. B. v. Byrds Manufacturing Corporation (8th Cir. 1963) 324 F.2d 329, The scope of review described in Universal Came......