| Wallace Corp. v. NLRB | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued November 15, 16, 1944 Decided December 18, 1944 |
||||||
| Full case name | Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board | |||||
| Citations | 323 U.S. 248 (more) 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, and Rutledge | |||||
| Dissent | Jackson, joined by Stone, Roberts, and Frankfurter | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| National Labor Relations Act | ||||||
Wallace Corp. v. NLRB 323 U.S. 248 (1944) was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
Contents |
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.
In a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding the Board found that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices in two respects:
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]
The Circuit Court of Appeals ordered enforcement of the NLRB's Order.[2]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari "because of the importance to the administration of the Act of the questions involved." 322 U.S. 721.
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.