|
|
Shepard v. Nlrb, 459 U.S. 344 (1983)
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.
Shepard v. Nlrb, 459 U.S. 344 (1983)
Shepard v. National Labor Relations Board No. 81-1627 Argued December 6, 1982 Decided January 18, 1983 459 U.S. 344
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondent union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with respondent contractors’ associations and their members prohibiting dealings by the contractors with nonunion dump truck operators. Petitioner, the owner and operator of a dump truck, who previously had not been a member of a union, joined the union under protest and paid an initiation fee, dues, and a contribution to a fringe benefit plan. Petitioner and one of respondent contractors’ associations then filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that the agreement violated, inter alia, § 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), which prohibits so-called "hot cargo" contracts. An Administrative Law Judge held that the union and the contractors had violated § 8(e) by agreeing not to do business with nonunion owner-operators of dump trucks, and recommended that the Board issue a cease-and-desist order and order the union and the contractors to reimburse the owner-operators who were compelled to join the union for amounts paid as dues, initiation fees, and fringe benefit contributions. The Board affirmed and adopted the recommended order except for the reimbursement provision, holding that a reimbursement order would not effectuate the remedial policies of the Act. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board’s order in all respects.
Held: The Board acted within its authority in deciding that a reimbursement order would not effectuate the policies of the Act. Congress has delegated to the Board the power to determine when those policies would be effectuated by a particular remedy, and the Board could properly conclude that a remedy such as reimbursement should be reserved for especially egregious situations. There is nothing in the language or structure of the Act that requires the Board to reflexively order "complete relief" for every unfair labor practice. Pp. 349-352.
215 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 669 F.2d 759, affirmed.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. O’CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion,post, p. 352.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Shepard v. Nlrb, 459 U.S. 344 (1983) in 459 U.S. 344 459 U.S. 345. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HU7ITSNKW1MEBLC.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Shepard v. Nlrb, 459 U.S. 344 (1983), in 459 U.S. 344, page 459 U.S. 345. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HU7ITSNKW1MEBLC.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Shepard v. Nlrb, 459 U.S. 344 (1983). cited in 1983, 459 U.S. 344, pp.459 U.S. 345. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HU7ITSNKW1MEBLC.
|