Wallace Corp. v. NLRB
| Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Argued November 15–16, 1944 Decided December 18, 1944 | |||||||
| Full case name | Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board. Richwood Clothespin and Dish Workers' Union v. Same. | ||||||
| Citations |
65 S. Ct. 238; 89 L. Ed. 216; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1245; 9 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P51,187; 15 L.R.R.M. 697 | ||||||
| Prior history | 141 F.2d 87 (affirmed) | ||||||
| Court membership | |||||||
| |||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||
| Majority | Black, joined by Reed, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge | ||||||
| Dissent | Jackson, joined by Stone, Roberts, Frankfurter | ||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||
| National Labor Relations Act | |||||||
Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U.S. 248 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case.
Background
Labor dispute
In an attempt to settle a labor dispute at a company plant, the company signed an agreement with two unions (an Independent union and a CIO union) that had been approved by the National Labor Relations Board. Pursuant to this agreement, at a consent election was held to determine which union would be certified by the Board as bargaining representative; the (company-dominated) Independent union won a majority of the votes cast. The company then signed a union shop contract with the union knowing that the union intended to refuse membership to employees who supported the CIO union. Independent refused to admit C. I. O. men to membership and the company discharged them.
NLRB's order
In a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding the Board found that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices in two respects:
- (1) Independent had been set up, maintained, and used by the company to frustrate the threatened unionization of its plant by the C. I. O. (i.e. it was a "company union"); and
- (2) the union shop contract was made by the company with knowledge that Independent intended to use the contract as a means of bringing about the discharge of former C. I. O. employees by denying them membership in Independent.
Accordingly, the NLRB entered an order requiring petitioner to disestablish Independent; to cease and desist from giving effect to the union shop contract between it and Independent; and to reinstate forty-three employees, whom it found to have been discharged, according to the terms of the union shop contract, because of their affiliation with the C. I. O. and their failure to belong to Independent.[1]
Circuit Court
The Circuit Court of Appeals ordered enforcement of the NLRB's Order.[2]
Certiorari
The Supreme Court granted certiorari "because of the importance to the administration of the Act of the questions involved." 322 U.S. 721.
Opinion of the Court
The Board's order was upheld by the United States Supreme Court even though it was not found that the company engaged in a conspiracy to bring about the employees' discharge. The Court emphasized the general hostility of the company to the rival union and members. The employer was not obliged to enter into the closed shop contract when it knew that discriminatory discharges of its employees were bound to occur under the contract.