NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
P. LORILLARD CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The National Labor Relations Board found that P. Lorillard Company violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain collectively with Pioneer Tobacco Workers' Local Industrial Union No. 55, which represented a majority of the company's employees at the time of the refusal. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's modification of the Board's enforcement order, holding that the company must bargain with the union based on its majority status at the time of the unfair labor practice, regardless of any subsequent changes in employee composition.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam:
The Board found that the respondent, P. Lorillard Company, had committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 453, by refusing to bargain collectively with Pioneer Tobacco Workers’ Local Industrial Union No. 55, which was at the time the duly selected bargaining representative of a majority of Lorillard’s employees. The Board affirmatively ordered Lorillard to bargain collectively with Local No.
55. On the Board’s petition for enforcement the court below sustained the Board’s finding, but, expressing the belief that because of lapse of time and changed conditions the Local might no longer represent the majority of employees, modified the Board’s order so as to require it to conduct an election to determine whether the Local had lost its majority due to a shift of employees to a rival independent association. The Board had considered the effect of a possible shift in membership, alleged to have occurred subsequent to Lorillard’s unfair labor practice. But it had reached the conclusion that, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, Lorillard must remedy the effect of its prior unlawful refusal to bargain by bargaining with the union shown to have had a majority on the date of Lorillard’s refusal to bargain. This was for the Board to determine, and the court below was in error in modifying the Board’s order in this respect. Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318, 339-340; I. A. of M. v. Labor Board, 311 U. S. 72, 82. See also Labor Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453, 458-459. The judgment of the court below is reversed with directions to enforce the order of the Board.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (65 total)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1969)…st order in such cases, but has the authority to issue a bargaining order without first requiring the union to show that it has been able to maintain its majority status. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U. S. 736, 748, n. 16 (1962); NLRB v. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U. S. 512 (1942). And we have held that the Board has the same authority even where it is clear that the union, which once had possession of cards from a majority of the employees, represents only a minority when the bargaining order is entered. Franks Bros…
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (U.S. 1962)…Or conditioned on the holding of a new election to determine whether the union is still the employees’ choice as a bargaining representative. The argument has no merit. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 702; Labor Board v. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U. S. 512; Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U. S. 563, 568. Inordinate delay in any case is regrettable, but Congress has introduced no time limitation into the Act except that in § 10 (b).…
-
Franks Bros. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 321 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1944)…tions which might make appropriate changed bargaining relationships. Id.; see 29 U. S. C. § 159 (c). That issuance of the order challenged by petitioner lay within the Board’s discretion is settled by our holding in Labor Board v. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U. S. 512, 513. The Lorillard case, argues petitioner, is distinguishable because in that case the Court pointed to the fact that, “The Board had considered the effect of a possible shift in membership. . . .” Id., 513. But in this case also the Board conside…
Previewing 3 of 65 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 311 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1940)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n (u. S. A.), 310 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1940)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Falk Corp., 308 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1940)