Franks Bros Co v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 521

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACK
Citation64 S.Ct. 817,88 L.Ed. 1020,321 U.S. 702
Decision Date10 April 1944
Docket NumberNo. 521
PartiesFRANKS BROS. CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

321 U.S. 702
64 S.Ct. 817
88 L.Ed. 1020
FRANKS BROS. CO.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 521.
Argued March 27, 1944.
Decided April 10, 1944.

Mr. Benjamin E. Gordon, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.

Mr. Alvin J. Rockwell, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The single question presented is whether the National Labor Relations Board acted within its statutory authority in ordering petitioner to bargain collectively with a union which had lost its majority after petitioner wrongfully had refused to bargain with it.

In June 1941 forty-five of the eighty production and maintenance employees in petitioner's clothing factory designated the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America as their bargaining representative. Attempts of the Union to negotiate with petitioner proved unsuccessful because of the latter's refusal to bargain, and the Union

Page 703

filed with the Board a petition for an investigation and certification of representatives. A consent election was scheduled for July 25, and notices posted. Before the election was held, petitioner conducted an aggressive campaign against the Union, even to the extent of threatening to close its factory if the Union won the election. Thereupon the Union withdrew its petition for an election, and filed charges with the Board alleging that petitioner had engaged in unfair labor practices.

In the following months various conferences were held and correspondence exchanged between petitioner and the Board in an unsuccessful effort to persuade the petitioner to cease opposition to the Union. Finally on March 2, 1942, the Board issued a complaint against petitioner. Hearings on the complaint were conducted at length, and in October 1942 a final order was entered. The finding of the Board, not here challenged, was that the foregoing conduct of petitioner, together with related conduct unnecessary to be detailed, constituted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 452, 453, 29 U.S.C. § 158(1) and (5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1, 5).

In reaching its conclusion as to the appropriate remedy for these unfair practices, the Board considered petitioner's contention that during the seven month interval between the filing of the charges and the issuance of the complaint, thirteen of the Union's original members had been replaced by new employees in the normal course of business. This left the Union with only thirty-two of the eighty-five employees then in the unit which it represented, or less than a majority. But the Board found that the Union's lack of a majority was 'not determinative of the remedy to be ordered.' Citing many of its previous decisions involving similar situations, the Board concluded that 'the only means by which a refusal to bargain can be remedied is an affirmative order requiring the employer

Page 704

to bargain with the Union which represented a majority at the time the unfair labor practice was committed.' 44 N.L.R.B. 898, 917. Accordingly, because it deemed such a provision 'necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act', the Board included in its order a requirement that petitioner bargain collectively with the Union. The Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Board, and directed enforcement of the order. 137 F.2d 989. To consider an alleged inconsistency between the Circuit Court's decision and our decision in National Labor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
276 practice notes
  • Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board, No. 12740.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 1, 1944
    ...Labor Relations Board v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 883, 886; Franks Bros. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 64 S.Ct. 817, decided April 10, 1944. We find the Board's order was within its power and reasonably adapted to effectuate the policies of the Act under the c......
  • Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 1, 1985
    ...(See, e.g., NLRB v. Katz (1962) 369 U.S. 736, 748, fn. 16, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 1114, fn. 16, 8 L.Ed.2d 230; Franks Bros. v. NLRB (1944) 321 U.S. 702, 704-706, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818-819, 88 L.Ed. 1020; NLRB v. P. Lorillard Co. (1942) 314 U.S. 512, 513, 62 S.Ct. 397, 397, 86 L.Ed. 380.) Since Gissel, ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc., Nos. 77-2095
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 10, 1978
    ...majority support was not readily deducible. E. g., Zim's Foodliner, Inc. v. NLRB, 495 F.2d at 1136-38. See also Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944). The Board may have concluded that the potential for abuse inherent in the employer's right to unilatera......
  • NLRB v. General Electric Company, No. 337
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • October 28, 1969
    ...the case was one of first impression, and there has thus been no "stubborn refusal to abide by the law." Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 705, 64 S.Ct. 817, 819, 88 L.Ed. 1020 In conclusion, I respectfully suggest, as Judge Burger did in United Steelworkers of America v. N. L. R. B.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
276 cases
  • Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board, No. 12740.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 1, 1944
    ...Labor Relations Board v. Southwestern Greyhound Lines, 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 883, 886; Franks Bros. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 64 S.Ct. 817, decided April 10, 1944. We find the Board's order was within its power and reasonably adapted to effectuate the policies of the Act under the c......
  • Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 1, 1985
    ...(See, e.g., NLRB v. Katz (1962) 369 U.S. 736, 748, fn. 16, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 1114, fn. 16, 8 L.Ed.2d 230; Franks Bros. v. NLRB (1944) 321 U.S. 702, 704-706, 64 S.Ct. 817, 818-819, 88 L.Ed. 1020; NLRB v. P. Lorillard Co. (1942) 314 U.S. 512, 513, 62 S.Ct. 397, 397, 86 L.Ed. 380.) Since Gissel, ......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Tahoe Nugget, Inc., Nos. 77-2095
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 10, 1978
    ...majority support was not readily deducible. E. g., Zim's Foodliner, Inc. v. NLRB, 495 F.2d at 1136-38. See also Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944). The Board may have concluded that the potential for abuse inherent in the employer's right to unilatera......
  • NLRB v. General Electric Company, No. 337
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • October 28, 1969
    ...the case was one of first impression, and there has thus been no "stubborn refusal to abide by the law." Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702, 705, 64 S.Ct. 817, 819, 88 L.Ed. 1020 In conclusion, I respectfully suggest, as Judge Burger did in United Steelworkers of America v. N. L. R. B.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT