Packard Motor Car Co. v.
NLRB case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
330 U.S. 485, 67 S. Ct.
789, 91 L. Ed. 1040, 19 LRRM 2397 (1947)
CASE SYNOPSIS: The Court
granted certiorari to review a decision of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which decreed the enforcement of an
order of respondent National Labor Relations Board requiring
petitioner employer to bargain with a union of foremen.
FACTS: At issue was whether the foremen, the employees of a car manufacturer with supervisory duties, were entitled to organize and constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. On certiorari, the Court found no basis in the Act for forbidding the foremen from the protection of the Act when they took collective action to protect their collective interests. The Court explained that § 9(b) of the Act conferred broad discretion upon the Board to determine the appropriate bargaining units, and because the Board's determination in this case was supported by substantial evidence, and not so unreasonable and arbitrary as to exceed the Board's power, its determination that the foremen were an appropriate bargaining unit was upheld by the Court. Because the Court found no ambiguity in the Act, it refused to resort to legislative history to determine its meaning. The Court explained also that policy arguments concerning the wisdom of the legislation could not alter the Court's interpretation of the Act's plain provisions.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of appeals, which decreed the enforcement of the Board's order.
FACTS: At issue was whether the foremen, the employees of a car manufacturer with supervisory duties, were entitled to organize and constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. On certiorari, the Court found no basis in the Act for forbidding the foremen from the protection of the Act when they took collective action to protect their collective interests. The Court explained that § 9(b) of the Act conferred broad discretion upon the Board to determine the appropriate bargaining units, and because the Board's determination in this case was supported by substantial evidence, and not so unreasonable and arbitrary as to exceed the Board's power, its determination that the foremen were an appropriate bargaining unit was upheld by the Court. Because the Court found no ambiguity in the Act, it refused to resort to legislative history to determine its meaning. The Court explained also that policy arguments concerning the wisdom of the legislation could not alter the Court's interpretation of the Act's plain provisions.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court of appeals, which decreed the enforcement of the Board's order.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment