National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co, No. 319
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FRANKFURTER |
| Citation | 90 L.Ed. 739,66 S.Ct. 553,327 U.S. 385 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CHENEY CALIFORNIA LUMBER CO |
| Docket Number | No. 319 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1946 |
v.
CHENEY CALIFORNIA LUMBER CO.
Page 386
MissRuth Weyand, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Cheney California Lumber Company, the respondent, operated a sawmill at Greenville, California. Some employees of the Company were members of Lumber and Saw Mill Workers, Local 4726, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The union complained to the National Labor Relations Board that the Company had engaged in unfair labor practices, in violation of § 8 of the Wagner Act, 49 Stat. 449, 452, 29 U.S.C. § 158, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158. Following the usual procedure, there was a hearing before a trial examiner who made an intermediate report, including specific recommendations for a cease-and-desist order. The Company filed no exceptions to this report, nor did it request an oral argument before the Board. Upon due consideration, the Board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the trial examiner. 54 N.L.R.B.
Page 387
205. Thereupon the Board asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to enter a decree upon its order. The Company then proposed modifications of the Board's order, which were granted by the court below. 149 F.2d 333. The Government petitioned for certiorari urging that one of the changes made by the Circuit Court of Appeals was based on a misconception of National Labor Relations Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930, as to the allowable scope of the Board's power to 'effectuate the policies' of the Act. § 10(c), 49 Stat. 454, 29 U.S.C. § 160(c), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(c). So we brought the case here. 326 U.S. 706, 66 S.Ct. 97. Upon the argument, this was the only modification to which the Government objected. We shall not consider the others. The court below struck out from the Board's order paragraph 1(b) whereby the Company was ordered, after appropriate treatment of the unfair labor practice arising from prohibited discharge of employees, to cease and desist from
'(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.'
The court found warrant for its excision of this provision in Labor Relations Board v. Express Pub. Co., supra. That case, however, recognized that it was within the power of the Board to make an order precisely like 1(b). It merely held that whether such an inclusive provision as 1(b) is justified in a particular case depends upon the circumstances of the particular case before the Board. See 312 U.S. at pages 433, 437, 438, 61 S.Ct. at pages 698, 700, 701, 85 L.Ed. 930. Here the trial examiner recommended the inclusion of 1(b) on the basis of his review of past hostilities by the company against efforts at unionization; no exception was made either to the findings or to thisrecommendation; upon full consideration of the record the Board adopted the trial examiner's
Page 388
recommendation; no objection was raised by the Company until after the Board sought judicial enforcement of its order. The objection came too late.
When judicial review is available and under what circumstances, are questions (apart from whatever requirements the Constitution may make in certain situations) that depend on the particular Congressional enactment under which judicial review is authorized. Orders of the National Labor Relations Board are enforceable by decrees of circuit courts of appeals. In such an enforcement proceeding, a court of appeals may enforce or modify or set aside the Board's order. § 10(e), 49 Stat. 454, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e). Since the court is ordering entry of a decree, it need not render such a decree if the Board has patently traveled outside the orbit of its authority so that there is legally speaking no order to enforce. But the proper scope of a Board order upon finding unfair labor practices calls for ample discretion in adapting remedy to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of North Carolina v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, No. C-74-391-W.
...which, and the courts in which, judicial review of administrative orders may be had. Cf. Labor Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739. So acting, Congress in § 313(b) prescribed the specific, complete and exclusive mode for judicial review o......
-
Pan American World Airways, Inc v. United States United States v. Pan American World Airways, Inc, Nos. 23 and 47
...Board v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426, 433, 436, 61 S.Ct. 693, 699, 85 L.Ed. 930; National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739) subject of course to judicial review. Dissolution of unlawful combinations, when based on appropriate findings (......
-
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination v. Colangelo
...National Labor Relations Bd., 326 U.S. 376, 386n, 66 S.Ct. 203, 90 L.Ed. 145; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Chency Calif. Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388-389, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. Page 603 of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344, 350, 73 S.C......
-
US v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 88-68-JLL.
...also State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Dole, 802 F.2d 474, 485 n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1986). Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388, 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739 (1946) (when and under what circumstances judicial review is available depends on the statute under wh......
-
State of North Carolina v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N, No. C-74-391-W.
...which, and the courts in which, judicial review of administrative orders may be had. Cf. Labor Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739. So acting, Congress in § 313(b) prescribed the specific, complete and exclusive mode for judicial review o......
-
Indep. Elec. Contractors of Houston, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 10–60822.
...orbit of its authority.” NLRB v. Blake Constr. Co., 663 F.2d 272, 284 n. 34 (D.C.Cir.1981) (citing, e.g., NLRB v. Cheney Cal. Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739 (1946)). Here, however, the Board did not patently travel outside its orbit of authority. The fact that the......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Annapolis Emergency Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., No. 76-1166
...outside the orbit of its authority so that there is, legally speaking, no order to enforce." NLRB v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388, 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739 (1946). See also NLRB v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 368 U.S. 318, 322, 82 S.Ct. 344, 7 L.Ed.2d 312 ENFORCEMENT D......
-
Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 88-2268
...of its order[s]." Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB, 318 U.S. 253, 256, 63 S.Ct. 585, 586, 87 L.Ed. 744 (1943). See NLRB v. Cheney Cal. Lumber, 327 U.S. 385, 389, 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739 (1946) (Section 10(e) insures that "all controversies of fact, and the allowable inferences from the ......