HOWELL CHEVROLET CO.
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Act applies to retail automobile dealers whose operations affect interstate commerce, even if local.
A retail automobile dealer was found guilty of unfair labor practices by the National Labor Relations Board. The dealer purchased over $1,000,000 in v…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Affecting Commerce cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Black, announced by Mr. Justice Reed. The petitioner Howell Chevrolet Company retails Chevrolet automobiles and parts in Glendale, California. After hearings, the National Labor Relations Board found Howell guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with its employees and intimidating them in various ways in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.* An appropriate order was issued. 95 N.
L. R. B.
410. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s order, 204 F. 2d 79, rejecting the contention that the Act could not be applied to Howell. On similar facts the Sixth Circuit held that the Labor Board had no jurisdiction over a local Ford auto mobile dealer. Labor Board v. Bill Daniels, Inc., 202 F. 2d 579. We granted certiorari to consider the single question presented by petitioner — whether the Act is applicable to retail automobile dealers like Howell. 345 U. S.
955.
Sections 10 (a) and 2 (7) of the Labor Act empower the Board to prevent “any person” from adversely “affecting commerce” by unfair labor practices “tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.” The Board found that Howell’s unfair labor practices tended to do this. Among others, the following facts underlie that finding: Howell bought its new Chevrolets from a General Motors assembly plant located in California and its spare parts and accessories were delivered to it from General Motors warehouses in California. Forty-three percent of all this merchandise was manufactured in other states and shipped into California for assembly or distribution. During 1949 Howell’s purchases from General Motors exceeded $1,000,000. Howell’s local retail establishment was closely supervised by General Motors. Sweeping control of the business was reserved by General Motors in a “Direct Dealer Selling Agreement.” Howell had to sign this agreement to get his “non-exclusive privilege of selling new Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis” and “parts and accessories.” The agreement required Howell to make varied and detailed reports about his business affairs, to devote full time to Chevrolet sales, to keep his sales facilities at a location and conduct the business in a manner that satisfied General Motors, to permit General Motors to inspect Howell’s books, accounts, facilities, stocks and accessories and to keep such uniform accounting systems as General Motors might prescribe. Many other terms of the agency agreement also emphasized the interdependence of Howell’s local and General Motors’ national activities. All this evidence caused the Board to conclude that Howell was “an integral part” of General Motors’ national system of distribution. Under these circumstances the Board was justified in finding that Howell’s repeated unfair labor practices tended to lead to disputes burdening or obstructing commerce among the states. It follows that the Board had jurisdiction to act under the facts it found.
Affirmed. Mr. Justice Douglas dissents. * 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.
S. C. (Supp. V) § 151 et seq.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (41 total)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ayer LAR Sanitarium, 436 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1970)…ect.” Luisi Truck Lines, 384 F. 2d at 846. The examiner need not accept as true statements made by the respondent’s own witnesses, even if uncontradicted, National Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F. 2d 79, 86 (9th Cir. 1953), aff’d, 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214, 98 L.Ed. 215 (1953), and the examiner is entitled to make such a determination solely on the basis of his evaluation of the witnesses’ demeanors. National Labor Relations Bd. v. Radcliffe, 211 F. 2d 309, 315n.6 (9th Cir. 1954). Relyi…
-
The Colson Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 347 F.2d 128 (8th Cir. 1965)…964); National Labor Relations Board v. Stow Manufacturing Co., 217 F. 2d 900 (2d Cir. 1954), cert denied, 348 U.S. 964, 75 S. Ct. 524, 99 L.Ed. 751 (1955); National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F. 2d 79 (9th Cir. 1952), aff’d, 346 U.S. 482, [*139] 74 S.Ct. 214, 98 L.Ed. 215 (1953); cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 349, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Dayton Typographical Union No. 57 v. National Labor Relations Board, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 91 at…
-
LA Preferida, Inc. v. Cerveceria Modelo, 914 F.2d 900 (7th Cir. 1990)…th Cir.1990); see Matter of Energy Coop., Inc., 814 F. 2d 1226, 1230 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 928, 108 S.Ct. 294, 98 L.Ed.2d 254 (1987). In Brown v. J.I. Case Co., 813 F. 2d 848, 854 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 912, 108 S.Ct. 258, 98 L.Ed.2d 215 (1987), the court set forth the essential elements of res judicata: 1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action; 2) an identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and later suit; and 3) an identity of parties or privies in the two…
Previewing 3 of 41 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 204 F.2d 79 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bill Daniels, Inc., 202 F.2d 579 (6th Cir. 1953)
- Voris v. Eikel, 345 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1953)
- Scarlett v. Maryland, 345 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1953)