Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board case
brief summary
340 U.S. 474 (1951)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner was ordered by respondent to reinstate with back pay an employee found to have been discharged because the employee gave testimony under the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160, and to cease and desist from discriminating against employees who filed charges or testified under the Wagner Act.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The judgment in favor of respondent was vacated and remanded where the appellate court erroneously believed that when determining the substantiality of evidence supporting respondent's decision, the appellate court was limited to reviewing only evidence that justified that decision.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
340 U.S. 474 (1951)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner sought review of the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
decreeing enforcement of respondent's order requiring petitioner to
reinstate an employee with back pay and to desist from discriminating
against employees who filed charges or testified under the Wagner
Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160.CASE FACTS
Petitioner was ordered by respondent to reinstate with back pay an employee found to have been discharged because the employee gave testimony under the Wagner Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160, and to cease and desist from discriminating against employees who filed charges or testified under the Wagner Act.
DISCUSSION
- The court of appeals decreed full enforcement of the order.
- Because the views of the court of appeals regarding the effect of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., and the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(e)(the Acts), on the relation between respondent and appellate courts in the enforcement of respondent's orders conflicted with another circuit's court of appeals, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Court held that what was intended under both of the Acts was that a reviewing court was not barred from setting aside respondent's decision when that court could not conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision was substantial.
- Thus, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded.
OUTCOME
The judgment in favor of respondent was vacated and remanded where the appellate court erroneously believed that when determining the substantiality of evidence supporting respondent's decision, the appellate court was limited to reviewing only evidence that justified that decision.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment