Supreme Court of the United States, 1940

National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 2, 1940 · Stone

308 U.S. 413; 60 S. Ct. 306; 84 L. Ed. 354; 1940 U.S. LEXIS 1188; 5 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 676 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles Fahy, with whom Solicitor General Jackson and Messrs. Robert B. Watts and Laurence A. Knapp were on the brief, for petitioner. ', Messrs. John B. Hollister and Isaac Lobe Straus, with whom Mr. Sigmund Levin was on the brief, for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

62 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.

Graham Architectural Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (3d Cir. 1983)
National Labor Relations Board v. National Plastic Products Co. (4th Cir. 1949)
Klein v. Herrick (District Court, S.D. New York 1941)
National Labor Relations Board v. Pizza Crust Company of Pennsylvania, Inc. (3d Cir. 1989)
Madden v. Brotherhood & Union of Transit Employees of Baltimore (4th Cir. 1945)
Wilson Employees' Representation Plan v. Wilson & Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1943)
Intertape Polymer Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (4th Cir. 2015)
Caterpillar Logistics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 2016)
National Labor Relations Board v. Great Western Coca-Cola Bottling Company (5th Cir. 1984)
Prairie Tank Southern, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (7th Cir. 1983)
United Dairy Farmers Cooperative Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board (3d Cir. 1980)
National Maritime Union of America v. National Labor Relations Board (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers International Union v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1973)
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1971)
National Steel Corporation, Great Lakes Steel Division v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 1969)
American Bread Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 1969)
National Labor Relations Board v. Q-T Shoe Manufacturing Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1968)
Town of Windsor v. Windsor Police Department Employees Ass'n (Conn. 1967)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 401. The decisive- question raised by the petition is whether a direction for an election made by the National Labor Relations Board in a representation proceeding under § 9 (c) of the Wagner Act, 49 Stat. 449, 453, 29 U. S. C., Supp. IV, §§ 151-166, is reviewable by a circuit court of appeals under § 10 (f) of the Act.

*414 In February, 1938, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 876, one of the respondents, and an affiliate of respondent, American Federation of Labor, filed with the regional director of the Board a petition asking an investigation and the certification of a representative, for purposes of collective bargaining, of the employees of Consumers Power Company, pursuant to § 9 (c) of the Act. After a hearing,' in which the petitioner, the employer, and the Utility Workers Organizing Committee, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organization, participatéd, the Board issued a “decision and direction of election.” 9 N. L. R. B. 742. At the election in January, 1939, 2,806 of the total 2,977 employees voted. Of these 1,072 voted for I. B. E. W. and 1,164 voted for U. W. O. C.

After further proceedings and a hearing the Board found “that the question concerning'representation which has arisen can best be resolved by the holding of a run-off election in which the employees in the appropriate unit will be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they desire to be represented by U. W. O. C.” and made its “direction” accordingly. 11 N. L. R. B. 848.

Contending that the direction, contrary to law, excludes Union 876 from the ballot on the run-off election, respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review the direction under the provisions of § 10 (f) of the Act. ' That court set aside the direction as infringing the free choice by employees of their representatives for purposes of collective bargaining assured to them by §§ 1, 7, 9 (a) and(c) of the Wagner Act. ,We granted certiorari October 9, 1939, so that the case might be considered with American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, supra.

Decision here is controlled by our decision in that case. The direction for an election is but a part of the repre *415 sentation proceeding authorized by § 9 (c) and is no more subject to review under § 10 (f) than is a certification which is the final step in such a proceeding and which we have just held Congress has excluded from the review afforded by that subdivisión.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.