Washington, Virginia Maryland Coach Co v. National Labor Relations Board, 469

Citation81 L.Ed. 965,57 S.Ct. 648,301 U.S. 142
Decision Date12 April 1937
Docket NumberNo. 469,469
PartiesWASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. William J. Hughes, Jr., Robert E. Lynch, and Wm. E. Leahy, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Charles Fahy, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from page 143 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case the petitioner, an operator of motorbusses for the transportation of passengers and express for hire between points in the District of Columbia and in the state of Virginia, challenges the enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) against it as in contravention of the commerce clause (art. 1, § 8) and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments of the Constitution.

Pursuant to a written charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board by Local No. 1079 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, a labor organization, the Board issued a complaint alleging that the petitioner had discharged and refused to reinstate certain drivers and garage workmen because of their membership and activity in Local No. 1079 and that this constituted engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the intent of section 8, subsections (1) and (3), and section 2, subsections (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.1 The petitioner appeared specially and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on constitutional grounds, and, without waiving its objections to the Board's jurisdiction, filed an answer substantially admitting the allegations of the complaint with respect to the interstate character of its business, admitting the discharge and refusal to reinstate the employees mentioned in the complaint, and alleging that its action was motivated by the employees' inefficiency and not affected by their membership or activity in the union. The Board overruled the objections to its jurisdiction, fully heard the case, received evidence offered by both parties, and at the conclusion of the hearing denied a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the evidence did not support the allegations of the complaint, except as to three of the twenty-one employees concerned as to whom the complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence. The Board rendered a decision setting forth its findings of fact and entered an order prohibiting the petitioner from discrimination against its employees based upon membership in a union or advocacy of collective bargaining and requiring the petitioner to restore eighteen of the discharged employees to their former positions with compensation for loss due to their discharge and to post notices to the effect that it would comply with the Board's order.2

Because of noncompliance with the order the Board filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Appeals for its enforcement. That court refused to disturb the findings of fact made by the Board, overruled the contentions as to unconstitutionality of the act as applied to petitioner and passed a decree en-enforcing the order.3

While the petitioner, in its specifications of error, attacks the holding of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the act as applied does not violate the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, the argument in brief and at the bar was confined to two propositions: first, that the act is an attempt on the part of Congress to regulate labor relations in all employments whether interstate or intrastate and as it is void as an attempted regulation of intrastate commerce the whole must fall because its provisions are inseverable; secondly, that the evidence does not sustain the findings and the Board committed substantial error in the exclusion of evidence.

First. No contention is made that the petitioner is other than an instrumentality of interstate commerce. It is engaged in interstate transportation for hire. Our decisions in Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034, and Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789, put beyond debate the validity of the statute as applied to the petitioner. The contention that the act on its face seeks to regulate labor relations in all employments, whether in interstate commerce or not, is plainly untenable. As we have had occasion to point out in decisions rendered this day, the act limits the jurisdiction of the Board to instances which fall within the commerce power and, if the Board should exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon it, any party aggrieved is at liberty to challenge its action.

Second. The petition for certiorari made no mention of any claim with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor R. Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 12, 1941
    ...supported by evidence, shall be conclusive,' means supported by substantial evidence. Washington, V. & M. Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board 1937 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a ......
  • Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 24, 1975
    ...921 (1937); Associated Press v. N.L.R.B., 301 U.S. 103, 57 S.Ct. 650, 81 L.Ed. 953 (1937); Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., v. N.L.R.B., 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965 (1937).16 The history of the restoration of the Court's authority from McCardle to Yerger to pass upon ......
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Same 12 8212 17, 1938
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...section 10(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e), means supported by substantial evidence. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S.Ct. 648, 650, 81 L.Ed. 965. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence ......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 13, 1937
    ...Marks Clothing Co., Inc., 301 U.S. 58, 57 S. Ct. 645, 81 L.Ed. 921, 108 A.L.R. 1352; Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965, and Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 103, 57 S.Ct. 650, 81 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Globalization and structure.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 53 No. 2, November 2011
    • November 1, 2011
    ...Marks Clothing Co., 301 U.S. 58 (1937); Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (1937); Wash., Va. & Md. Coach Co. v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 142 (198.) Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. at 41. (199.) Id. at 26. (200.) Id. at 41. (201.) Id. (202.) Id. (203.) See, e.g., JOSEPH ALSOP &......
  • CONGRESSIONAL POWER, PUBLIC RIGHTS, AND NON-ARTICLE III ADJUDICATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 98 No. 3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...(discussing the history of "the 'substantial evidence' formula" for fact-finding review (quoting Wash., Va. & Md. Coach Co. v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 142, 147 (249) Cf. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150,152 (1999) (discussing standards of reviewfor agency fact finding). (250) 473 U.S. 568 (1985)......
  • Philadelphia lawyer: a cautionary tale.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 145 No. 3, January 1997
    • January 1, 1997
    ...301 U.S. 58 (1937); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937). (19) See Washington, Va. & Md. Coach Co. v. NLRB,, 301 U.S. 142 (1937); Associated Press v. NLRB 301 U.S. 103 (20) 301 U.S. 1 (1937). (21) See Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937); Steward Machine Co. v.......
  • Federal Protection of Labor
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The No. 224-1, November 1942
    • November 1, 1942
    ...Brotherhood of Railway and sociated Press, 301 U. S. 103; Washington, Vir- Steamship Clerks, 281 U. S. 548. ginia & Maryland Coach Co., 301 U. S. 142. 11 47 Stat. 70-73, 29 U. S. C. Secs. 18 Jones & Laughlin case, supra, note 17, at 12 48 Stat. 195, 15 U. S. C. 703. p. 34. ann.sagepub.com D......

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