|
|
Hudgens v. Nlrb, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
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.
Hudgens v. Nlrb, 424 U.S. 507 (1976)
Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board No. 74-773 Argued October 14, 1975 Decided March 3, 1976 424 U.S. 507
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
When striking members of respondent union picketed in front of their employer’s leased store located in petitioner’s shopping center, the shopping center’s general manager threatened them with arrest for criminal trespass if they did not depart, and they left. The union then filed unfair labor practice charges against petitioner, alleging that the threat constituted interference with rights protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), concluding that the NLRA had been violated, issued a cease and desist order against petitioner, and the Court of Appeals enforced the order. Petitioner and respondent union contend that the respective rights and liabilities of the parties are to be decided under the criteria of the NLRA alone, whereas the NLRB contends that such rights and liabilities must be measured under a First Amendment standard.
Held:
1. Under the present state of the law, the constitutional guarantee of free expression has no part to play in a case such as this, and the pickets here did not have a First Amendment right to enter the shopping center for the purpose of advertising their strike against their employer. Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551. Pp. 512-521.
2. The rights and liabilities of the parties are dependent exclusively upon the NLRA, under which it is the NLRB’s task, subject to judicial review, to resolve conflicts between § 7 rights and private property rights and to seek accommodation of such rights "with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other," NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112. Hence, the case is remanded so that the NLRB may reconsider the case under the NLRA’s statutory criteria alone. Pp. 521-523.
501 F.2d 161, vacated and remanded.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. POWELL, filed a concurring opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 523. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 524. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, J., joined, post, p. 525. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hudgens v. Nlrb, 424 U.S. 507 (1976) in 424 U.S. 507 424 U.S. 508. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SEAS8YJVLT88BPF.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hudgens v. Nlrb, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), in 424 U.S. 507, page 424 U.S. 508. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SEAS8YJVLT88BPF.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hudgens v. Nlrb, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). cited in 1976, 424 U.S. 507, pp.424 U.S. 508. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SEAS8YJVLT88BPF.
|