Supreme Court of the United States, 1942

National Labor Relations Board v. P. Lorillard Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 5, 1942 · Roberts

314 U.S. 512; 62 S. Ct. 397; 86 L. Ed. 380; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 1171; 9 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 410 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Richard H. Demuth, with whom Solicitor General Fahy and Messrs. Archibald Cox, Robert B. Watts, Laurence A. Knapp, and Morris P. Gluskien were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Homer Cummings, with whom Messrs. William Stanley, Carl McFarland, and Wm. R. Perkins were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

83 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Great Southern Trucking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (4th Cir. 1944)
Bryant Chucking Grinder Company v. National Labor Relations Board (2d Cir. 1967)
National Labor Relations Board v. Inter-City Advertising Co. (4th Cir. 1946)
National Labor Relations Board v. Canton Sign Company (6th Cir. 1972)
National Labor Relations Board v. Canton Sign Co. (6th Cir. 1972)
Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Cal. 1985)
General Steel Products, Inc. And Crown Flex of North Carolina, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (4th Cir. 1971)
National Labor Relations Board v. American Cable Systems, Inc. (5th Cir. 1970)
G. P. D., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 1970)
National Labor Relations Board v. Patent Trader, Inc. (2d Cir. 1969)
National Labor Relations Board v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1966)
Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1950)
National Labor Relations Board v. National Plastic Products Co. (4th Cir. 1949)
National Labor Relations Board v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (4th Cir. 1944)
National Labor Relations Board v. Franks Bros. Co. (1st Cir. 1943)
Wausau Steel Corporation v. The National Labor Relations Board (7th Cir. 1967)
wis.E. R. Board v. International Asso., Etc. (Wis. 1942)
Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers & Shopmen's Local No. 471 (Wis. 1942)
National Labor Relations Board v. Community Health Services, Inc. (10th Cir. 2007)
National Labor Relations Board v. Miller Waste Mills (8th Cir. 2003)
National Labor Relations Board v. Miller Waste Mills (8th Cir. 2003)
National Labor Relations Board v. Williams Enterprises, Incorporated, a Division of Williams Industries, Incorporated (4th Cir. 1995)
Chromalloy Mining and Minerals Alaska Division, Chromalloy American Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (5th Cir. 1980)
Drug Package, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Graphic Arts International Union, Local 505, Afl-Cio-Clc, Intervenor-Respondent (8th Cir. 1978)
Galloway Township Board of Education v. Galloway Township Ass'n of Educational Secretaries (N.J. 1978)

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

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 collec *513 tively 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.

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