Washington, Virginia Maryland Coach Co v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 469

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

301 U.S. 142
57 S.Ct. 648
81 L.Ed. 965
WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO.

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 469.
Argued Feb. 10, 1937.
Decided April 12, 1937.

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

Page 143

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

[Argument of Counsel from page 143 intentionally omitted]

Page 144

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

Page 145

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 practice notes
  • Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, No. 73-1765
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 24, 1975
    ...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 16 The history of the restoration of the Court's authority from McCardle to Yerger to pass upon the validity of con......
  • American Gas & Electric Co. v. Securities & Exch. Com'n, No. 7948.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 1, 1943
    ...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 reasonable mind might......
  • Associated Indus. of NYS, Inc. v. United States Dept. of L., No. 221
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 4, 1973
    ...8 The Court had earlier held in a different context that "evidence" meant "substantial evidence," Washington, V. & M. Coach Co. v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 142, 146-147, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965 9 E. g., NLRB v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 62 S.Ct. 960, 86 L.Ed. 1305 (1942), one......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., No. 8361.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 13, 1937
    ...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 L.Ed. 953, arising under t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
80 cases
  • Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n, No. 73-1765
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • July 24, 1975
    ...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 16 The history of the restoration of the Court's authority from McCardle to Yerger to pass upon the validity of con......
  • American Gas & Electric Co. v. Securities & Exch. Com'n, No. 7948.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 1, 1943
    ...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 reasonable mind might......
  • Associated Indus. of NYS, Inc. v. United States Dept. of L., No. 221
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 4, 1973
    ...8 The Court had earlier held in a different context that "evidence" meant "substantial evidence," Washington, V. & M. Coach Co. v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 142, 146-147, 57 S.Ct. 648, 81 L.Ed. 965 9 E. g., NLRB v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 62 S.Ct. 960, 86 L.Ed. 1305 (1942), one......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., No. 8361.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 13, 1937
    ...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 L.Ed. 953, arising under t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Federal Protection of Labor
    • United States
    • ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Nbr. 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