|
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Ibew, 417 U.S. 790 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Ibew, 417 U.S. 790 (1974)
Florida Power & Light Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641 No. 73-556 Argued April 24, 1974 Decided June 24, 1974 * 417 U.S. 790
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A union does not commit an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it disciplines supervisor-members for crossing a picket line and performing rank-and-file struck work during a lawful economic strike against the employer. Pp. 798-813.
(a) Both the language and legislative history of § 8(b)(1)(B) reflect a clear congressional concern with protecting employers in the selection of representatives to engage in two particular and explicitly stated activities, viz., collective bargaining and adjustment of grievances. Therefore, a union’s discipline of supervisor-members can violate § 8(b)(1)(B) only when it may adversely affect the supervisors’ conduct in performing the duties of, and acting in the capacity of, grievance adjusters or collective bargainers, in neither of which capacities the supervisors involved in these cases were acting when they crossed the picket lines to perform rank-and-file work. Pp. 802-805.
(b) The concern that to permit a union to discipline supervisor-members for performing rank-and-file work during an economic strike will deprive the employer of those supervisors’ full loyalty, is a problem that Congress addressed not through § 8(b)(1)(B), but through §§ 2(3), 2(11), and 14(a) of the NLRA, which, while permitting supervisors to become union members, assure the employer of his supervisors’ loyalty by reserving in him the rights to refuse to hire union members as supervisors, to discharge supervisors for involvement in union activities or union membership, and to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with supervisors. Pp. 805-813.
159 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 487 F.2d 1143, affirmed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 813.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Florida Power & Light Co. v. Ibew, 417 U.S. 790 (1974) in 417 U.S. 790 417 U.S. 791. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEWA51SG15JMPCL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Florida Power & Light Co. v. Ibew, 417 U.S. 790 (1974), in 417 U.S. 790, page 417 U.S. 791. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEWA51SG15JMPCL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Florida Power & Light Co. v. Ibew, 417 U.S. 790 (1974). cited in 1974, 417 U.S. 790, pp.417 U.S. 791. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FEWA51SG15JMPCL.
|