|
Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961)
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.
Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961)
Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc. No. 339 Argued March 1, 1961 Decided April 17, 1961 365 U.S. 695
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A collective bargaining agreement required employers to comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law, and provided that foremen must be union members and do the hiring, but that they should be responsible only to the employers. The National Labor Relations Board found that certain union foremen had discriminated against certain nonunion employees, and it concluded that the union and an employer had violated § 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and § 8(a)(1) and (3), respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by their contract arrangements and by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system; and it ordered, inter alia, that certain employees be reimbursed for dues and assessments paid to the union during the period covered by the complaint. The Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board’s order.
Held:
1. The Board was not authorized under § 10(c) to require reimbursement of dues and assessments paid to the union. Carpenters Local 60 v. Labor Board, ante, p. 651. P. 699.
2. The contract was not unlawful on its face, even though the foremen -- who were union members -- were required to do the hiring. Pp. 699-700.
3. The requirement that employers comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law was not unlawful per se. P. 700.
4. The Court of Appeals did not go beyond the scope of review entrusted to it in holding that the record did not support the Board’s finding that, in practice, respondents maintained and enforced closed shop and preferential hiring conditions which violated the Act. Pp. 700-703.
279 F.2d 323, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961) in 365 U.S. 695 365 U.S. 696. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=N3K8458V4ZM7RRL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961), in 365 U.S. 695, page 365 U.S. 696. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=N3K8458V4ZM7RRL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961). cited in 1961, 365 U.S. 695, pp.365 U.S. 696. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=N3K8458V4ZM7RRL.
|