U.S. Supreme Court, (February 04, 1938)
Docket number: 413
/us/303/261/case.html
Permanent Link:
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20018788
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018788
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

US Code - Title 29: Labor - 29 USC 158 - Sec. 158. Unfair labor practices
US Code - Title 29: Labor - 29 USC 160 - Sec. 160. Prevention of unfair labor practices
U.S. Supreme Court - NLRB v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563 (1950)
U.S. Supreme Court - Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (1996)
U.S. Supreme Court - Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 781 (1996)
U.S. Supreme Court - County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261 (1938)
[Page 303 U.S. 261, 267] Labor, H.R. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3. It had before it the Railway Clerks Case which had emphasized the importance of union recognition in securing collective bargaining, Report of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, S.Rep. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 17, and there were then available data showing that once an employer has conferred recognition on a particular organization it has a marked advantage over any other in securing the adherence of employees, and hence in preventing the recognition of any other. [Footnote 2] The National Labor Relations Act continued and amplified the policy of the Railway Labor Act by its declaration in section 7, 29 U.S.C.A. 157, and by providing generally in section 8, 29 U.S.C.A. 158, that any interferences in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by section 7 and specifically the domination or interference with the formation or administration of any labor organization were unfair labor practices. To secure to employees the benefits of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of the employees' own choosing, the Board was authorized by section 10(c), 29 U.S.C.A. 160(c), to order the abandonment of unfair labor practices and to take affirmative action which would carry out the policy of the Act. [Page 303 U.S. 261, 272] We have considered but find it unnecessary to comment upon other objections to the order, of less moment. REVERSED. Mr. Justice CARDOZO and Mr. Justice REED took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Footnotes Footnote 1 Sec. 10(c). 'The testimony taken by such member, agent or agency or the Board shall be reduced to writing and filed with the Board. Thereafter, in its discretion, the Board upon notice may take further testimony or hear argument. If upon all the testimony taken the Board shall be of the opinion that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, then the Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice, and to take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay as will effectuate the policies of this Act (chapter).' 29 U.S.C.A. 160(c) Footnote 2 On the significance of recognition in collective bargaining see Commons and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, Harper & Bros., 4th Ed., 1936, p. 372; Catlin, The Labor Problem, Harper & Bros., 1935, pp. 431, 522; Rufener, Principles of Economics, Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1927, p. 399; Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., Labor and the Government, 1935, p. 47; Yoder, Labor Economics and Labor Problems, 1933, p. 443; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Characteristics of Company Unions, Bulletin No. 634, Chs. VII, XXII.Try vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access