National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corporation
| Citation | 301 U.S. 1,57 S.Ct. 615,81 L.Ed. 893 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 419,419 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 1-5 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Stanley F. Reed, Sol. Gen., and J. Warren Madden, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Earl F. Reed, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 5-22 intentionally omitted]
In a proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act of 19351 the National Labor Relations Board found that the respondent, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, had violated the act by engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce. The proceeding was instituted by the Beaver Valley Lodge No. 200, affiliated with the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of America, a labor organization. The unfair labor practices charged were that the corporation was discriminating against members of the union with regard to hire and tenure of employment, and was coercing and intimidating its enployees in order to interfere with their self-organization. The discriminatory and coercive action alleged was the discharge of certain employees.
The National Labor Relations Board, sustaining the charge, ordered the corporation to cease and desist from such discrimination and coercion, to offer reinstatement to ten of the employees named, to make good their losses in pay, and to post for thirty days notices that the corporation would not discharge or discriminate against members, or those desiring to become members, of the labor union. As the corporation failed to comply, the Board petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce the order. The court denied the petition holding that the order lay beyond the range of federal power. 83 F.(2d) 998. We granted certiorari. 299 U.S. 534, 57 S.Ct. 119, 81 L.Ed. —-.
The scheme of the National Labor Relations Act—which is too long to be quoted in full—may be briefly stated. The first section (29 U.S.C.A. § 151) sets forth findings with respect to the injury to commerce resulting from the denial by employers of the right of employees to organize and from the refusal of employers to accept the procedure of col-
lective bargaining. There follows a declaration that it is the policy of the United States to eliminate these causes of obstruction to the free flow of commerce.2 The act
then defines the terms it uses, including the terms 'commerce' and 'affecting commerce.' Section 2 (29 U.S.C.A. § 152). It creates the National Labor Relations Board and prescribes its organization. Sections 3—6 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 153—156). It sets forth the right of employees to self-organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. Section 7 (29 U.S.C.A. § 157). It defines 'unfair labor practices.' Section 8 (29 U.S.C.A. § 158). It lays down rules as to the representation of employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. Section 9 (29 U.S.C.A. § 159). The Board is empowered to prevent the described unfair labor practices affecting commerce and the act prescribes the procedure to that end. The Board is authorized to petition designated courts to secure the enforcement of its order. The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence, are to be conclusive. If either party on application to the court shows that additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the hearings before the Board, the court may order the additional evidence to be taken. Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board may obtain a review in the designated courts with the same procedure as in the case of an application by the Board for the enforcement of its order. Section 10 (29 U.S.C.A. § 160). The Board has broad powers of investigation. Section 11 (29 U.S.C.A. § 161). Interference with members of the Board or its agents in the performance of their duties is punishable by fine and imprisonment. Section 12 (29 U.S.C.A. § 162). Nothing in the act is to be construed to interfere with the right to strike. Section 13 (29 U.S.C.A. § 163). There is a separability clause to the effect that, if any provision of the act or its application to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of the act or its application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Section 15 (29 U.S.C.A. § 165). The particular provisions which are involved in the instant case will be considered more in detail in the course of the discussion.
The procedure in the instant case followed the statute. The labor union filed with the Board its verified charge.
The Board thereupon issued its complaint against the respondent, alleging that its action in discharging the employees in question constituted unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), and section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7), of the act. Respondent, appearing specially for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the Board, filed its answer. Respondent admitted the discharges, but alleged that they were made because of inefficiency or violation of rules or for other good reasons and were not ascribable to union membership or activities. As an affirmative defense respondent challenged the constitutional validity of the statute and its applicability in the instant case. Notice of hearing was given and respondent appeared by counsel. The Board first took up the issue of jurisdiction and evidence was presented by both the Board and the respondent. Respondent then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and, on denial of that motion, respondent in accordance with its special appearance withdrew from further participation in the hearing. The Board received evidence upon the merits and at its close made its findings and order.
Contesting the ruling of the Board, the respondent argues (1) that the act is in reality a regulation of labor relations and not of interstate commerce; (2) that the act can have no application to the respondent's relations with its production employees because they are not subject to regulation by the federal government; and (3) that the provisions of the act violate section 2 of article 3 and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The facts as to the nature and scope of the business of the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation have been found by the Labor Board, and, so far as they are essential to the determination of this controversy, they are not in dispute. The Labor Board has found: The corporation is
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and has its principal office at Pittsburgh. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel in plants situated in Pittsburgh and nearby Aliquippa, Pa. It manufactures and distributes a widely diversified line of steel and pig iron, being the fourth largest producer of steel in the United States. With its subsidiaries nineteen in number—it is a completely integrated enterprise, owning and operating ore, coal and limestone properties, lake and river transportation facilities and terminal railroads located at its manufacturing plants. It owns or controls mines in Michigan and Minnesota. It operates four ore steamships on the Great Lakes, used in the transportation of ore to its factories. It owns coal mines in Pennsylvania. It operates towboats and steam barges used in carrying coal to its factories. It owns limestone properties in various places in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It owns the Monongahela connecting railroad which connects the plants of the Pittsburgh works and forms an interconnection with the Pennsylvania, New York Central and Baltimore & Ohio Railroad systems. It owns the Aliquippa & Southern Railroad Company, which connects the Aliquippa works with the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie, part of the New York Central system. Much of its product is shipped to its warehouses in Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnati and Memphis,—to the last two places by means of its own barges and transportation equipment. In Long Island City, New York, and in New Orleans it operates structural steel fabricating shops in connection with the warehousing of semifinished materials sent from its works. Through one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries it owns, leases, and operates stores, warehouses, and yards for the distribution of equipment and supplies for drilling and operating oil and gas wells and for pipe lines, refineries and pumping stations. It has sales offices in
twenty cities in the United States and a wholly-owned subsidiary which is devoted exclusively to distributing its product in Canada. Approximately 75 per cent. of its product is shipped out of Pennsylvania.
Summarizing these operations, the Labor Board concluded that the works in Pittsburgh and Aliquippa
To carry on the activities of the entire steel industry, 33,000 men mine ore, 44,000 men mine coal, 4,000 men quarry limestone, 16,000 men manufacture coke, 343,000 men manufacture steel, and 83,000 men transport its product. Respondent has about 10,000 employees in its Aliquippa plant, which is located in a community of about 30,000 persons.
Respondent points to evidence that the Aliquippa plant, in which the discharged, men were employed, contains complete facilities for the production of finished and semifinished iron and steel products from raw materials; that its works...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Lockyer, 03-55166.
...and employees have the ability to engage in open and robust debate concerning unionization.6 See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 45, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937) ("The theory of the Act is that free opportunity for negotiation ... may bring about the adjustments and a......
-
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
...(See Hess , supra , 140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1598–1601, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 609.)Gerawan also relies on Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin (1937) 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 ( Jones ) and Porter Co. v. NLRB (1970) 397 U.S. 99, 90 S.Ct. 821, 25 L.Ed.2d 146 ( Porter ), where the high court i......
-
Mass. Bldg. Trades Council v. United States Dep't of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. (In re MCP No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin.)
...emphasized that to determine the Commerce Clause's applicability, we focus on the "effect upon commerce, not the source of the injury," 301 U.S. at 32, and that Congress may under the Commerce Clause to ensure the safety of commerce, id. at 37. When industries occupy a "national scale," mor......
-
Ex parte Alabama Oxygen Co., Inc.
...452 U.S. 264, 312, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., concurring). See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, 37, 57 S.Ct. 615, 624, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937); Shreveport Rate Case, 234 U.S. 342, 351, 34 S.Ct. 833, 836, 58 L.Ed. 1341 (1914); Wickard v. Filb......
-
Labor Unions: Saviors or Scourges?
...134 See Coronado Coal , 259 U.S. at 396. 135 See id. at 407–09. 136 Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 268 U.S. 295, 310 (1925). 137 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937). 2013] SAVIORS OR SCOURGES? 21 However, the distinction turned on the question of authorization at the national level, which had ......
-
Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence: Washington Gives at Will Employees a Gun With No Ammunition to Fight Against Unjust Dismissal
...employers from using the right of discharge as a means to "intimidate or coerce employees." NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 45-46 16. Congress also passed the Child Labor Law, § 12, 52 Stat. 1067 (1938) (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 212 (1982)) and the Railway Labo......
-
Table of Cases
...688-89, 691, 836, 1209 NLRB v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 59 S.Ct. 668, 83 L.Ed. 1014 (1939), 721 NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615,81 L.Ed. 893 (1937), 218, 247, 306, 444, 721, Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Co., 147 U.S. 165, 13 S.Ct. 271, 37 L.Ed. 12......
-
Federal hate crime laws and United States v. Lopez: on a collision course to clarify jurisdictional-element analysis.
...("From 1937 until 1995, not one federal law was invalidated as exceeding the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority."). (11) See 301 U.S. 1, 37 (1937) (upholding legislation that, in aggregate, has a "close and substantial relationship to interstate (12) See THE HERITAGE FOUND., THE H......