31:
358:{Cquote|To conclude that the company—through its president—was unaware the conciliators were acting at the instance of the Union, and therefore is not to be held responsible for its flat refusal to meet with its employees, is both to ignore the record and to shut our eyes to the realities of the conditions of modern industry and industrial strife." Black also noted that no arbitration was pending, and so the union was not in violation of its contract.
344:
not based on "substantial" evidence. The majority defined substantial evidence as evidence which "must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and it must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury.
259:(Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.
343:
Stone concluded that the NLRB's decision was not supported by the evidence. The NLRB agents' proposals to the employer did not constitute a request for bargaining under the NLRA, and so the employer's refusal to respond to them was not a violation of the law. The NLRB's conclusions, Stone said, were
376:
is the first significant, lengthy statement of this rule. But the "substantial evidence" test has been criticized as being "largely an exercise in semantics, i.e., an analysis of the words used in writing opinions and not of the extent in which reviewing courts inquired into the facts."
355:. Black concluded that the majority had substituted its own appraisal of the evidence for that of the Board's, which was inappropriate. He also concluded that the majority disregarded the evidence that the mediators were negotiating with the employer on behalf of the union.
307:, 1936, the NLRB held Columbian Enameling & Stamping in violation of the NLRA for refusing to bargain in good faith with its workers, and ordered all strikebreakers fired and all former employees rehired. The company sued in federal court to have the order overturned.
299:
on July 23, 1935. During the strike, the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law. The Board attempted to mediate an end to the strike in July and August, but to no avail. The union submitted proposals to the employer in September and October, but received no reply.
394:
398:, 301 U.S. 1 (1938) upheld the NLRA's constitutionality. The three cases also expanded the way the Court interpreted the NLRA. Although the justices had previously interpreted the Act solely through the lens of the
372:, 222 U.S. 541 (1912), the Court originally required administrative agencies to provide "more than a scintilla" of evidence. But by the late 1930s, the Court had shifted to the "substantial evidence rule."
730:
283:
of disputes and barred work stoppages (pending arbitration). Over the next seven months, the company and union met repeatedly to discuss and negotiate over the union's demands, which included a
402:(showing strong deference to the Board), now the Court evinced a willingness to apply evidentiary standards to the Board's actions and to impose a less radical interpretation on the law.
108:
646:
434:
116:
72:
315:
735:
133:
Decisions of the NLRB must be based on substantial evidence; third-party requests for collective bargaining do not constitute a request for bargaining under the NLRA.
725:
720:
380:
The case was one of the first clear-cut defeats for the Board before the
Supreme Court, after an unprecedented string of 15 successes. Along with
368:
382:
322:
35:
388:
256:
252:
333:
164:
702:
666:
104:
329:
156:
650:
438:
276:
120:
64:
392:, 306 U.S. 332 (1939), the decision has been called one of the three most significant NLRB cases since
325:
268:
148:
684:
615:
The
Reshaping of the National Labor Relations Board: National Labor Policy in Transition, 1937-1947.
352:
188:
292:
693:
304:
192:
675:
287:
and the dismissal of all workers the union had suspended for non-payment of dues. The union
248:
399:
318:
168:
657:
611:
441:
714:
296:
288:
411:
366:
Initially, the
Supreme Court had adopted the "mere scintilla" rule. As defined in
337:
244:
176:
67:
620:
Matthews, Daniel E. "Administrative Law: The Status of 'Substantial
Evidence'."
284:
280:
272:
348:
180:
112:
83:
54:
National Labor
Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
24:
National Labor
Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
267:
Columbian
Enameling & Stamping Co. manufactured metal utensils in
222:
Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
79:
101:
30:
631:
Columbia, S.C.: University of South
Carolina Press, 2007.
629:
The Chief
Justiceship of Charles Evans Hughes: 1930-1941.
369:
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad
617:
Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1981.
731:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Hughes Court
209:
Stone, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Butler, Roberts
226:
213:
205:
200:
137:
127:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
291:on March 23, 1935, and the strike turned into a
321:wrote the decision for the majority, joined by
279:agreement on July 14, 1934, which provided for
643:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
538:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
526:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
514:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
502:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
490:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
478:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
466:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
454:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
431:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
395:NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
374:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
240:NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
608:. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1951.
8:
504:, 306 U.S. at 301 (Black, J., dissenting).
20:
736:National Labor Relations Board litigation
578:
576:
423:
351:dissented, joined by Associate Justice
275:of its employees and signed a one-year
557:
555:
295:on March 30. The plant reopened with
18:1939 United States Supreme Court case
7:
383:NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
726:United States Supreme Court cases
653:292 (1939) is available from:
29:
622:American University Law Review.
389:NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co.
721:1939 in United States case law
257:National Labor Relations Board
1:
253:National Labor Relations Act
243:, 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a
232:National Labor Relations Act
752:
386:, 306 U.S. 240 (1939) and
255:required decisions of the
43:Argued January 11–12, 1939
231:
221:
142:
132:
45:Decided February 27, 1939
28:
328:and Associate Justices
516:, 306 U.S. at 301-302.
330:James Clark McReynolds
604:Davis, Kenneth Culp.
277:collective bargaining
251:held 5-to-2 that the
217:Black, joined by Reed
326:Charles Evans Hughes
269:Terre Haute, Indiana
703:Library of Congress
353:Stanley Forman Reed
157:James C. McReynolds
606:Administrative Law
540:, 306 U.S. at 306.
528:, 306 U.S. at 303.
492:, 306 U.S. at 300.
480:, 306 U.S. at 299.
468:, 306 U.S. at 297.
456:, 306 U.S. at 296.
347:Associate Justice
271:. It recognized a
153:Associate Justices
78:59 S. Ct. 501; 83
627:Ross, William G.
316:Associate Justice
236:
235:
193:Felix Frankfurter
149:Charles E. Hughes
743:
707:
701:
698:
692:
689:
683:
680:
674:
671:
665:
662:
656:
592:
589:
583:
580:
571:
568:
562:
561:Matthews, p. 45.
559:
550:
549:Matthews, p. 44.
547:
541:
535:
529:
523:
517:
511:
505:
499:
493:
487:
481:
475:
469:
463:
457:
451:
445:
428:
249:US Supreme Court
138:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
751:
750:
746:
745:
744:
742:
741:
740:
711:
710:
705:
699:
696:
690:
687:
681:
678:
672:
669:
663:
660:
654:
638:
624:3:2 (May 1954).
612:Gross, James A.
601:
596:
595:
590:
586:
581:
574:
569:
565:
560:
553:
548:
544:
536:
532:
524:
520:
512:
508:
500:
496:
488:
484:
476:
472:
464:
460:
452:
448:
429:
425:
420:
408:
400:Commerce Clause
364:
319:Harlan F. Stone
313:
265:
247:case where the
191:
189:Stanley F. Reed
179:
169:Harlan F. Stone
167:
123:583 (1938).
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
749:
747:
739:
738:
733:
728:
723:
713:
712:
709:
708:
685:Google Scholar
637:
636:External links
634:
633:
632:
625:
618:
609:
600:
597:
594:
593:
584:
572:
570:Davis, p. 915.
563:
551:
542:
530:
518:
506:
494:
482:
470:
458:
446:
422:
421:
419:
416:
415:
414:
407:
404:
363:
360:
312:
309:
297:strikebreakers
264:
261:
234:
233:
229:
228:
224:
223:
219:
218:
215:
211:
210:
207:
203:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
154:
151:
146:
140:
139:
135:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
748:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
716:
704:
695:
686:
677:
668:
667:CourtListener
659:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
635:
630:
626:
623:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
603:
602:
598:
591:Ross, p. 150.
588:
585:
582:Gross, p. 83.
579:
577:
573:
567:
564:
558:
556:
552:
546:
543:
539:
534:
531:
527:
522:
519:
515:
510:
507:
503:
498:
495:
491:
486:
483:
479:
474:
471:
467:
462:
459:
455:
450:
447:
443:
440:
436:
432:
427:
424:
417:
413:
410:
409:
405:
403:
401:
397:
396:
391:
390:
385:
384:
378:
375:
371:
370:
361:
359:
356:
354:
350:
345:
341:
339:
335:
334:Pierce Butler
331:
327:
324:
323:Chief Justice
320:
317:
310:
308:
306:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
262:
260:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
230:
225:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:Case opinions
199:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
165:Pierce Butler
162:
158:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:Chief Justice
144:
143:
141:
136:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
642:
628:
621:
614:
605:
587:
566:
545:
537:
533:
525:
521:
513:
509:
501:
497:
489:
485:
477:
473:
465:
461:
453:
449:
444: (1939).
430:
426:
412:US labor law
393:
387:
381:
379:
373:
367:
365:
362:Significance
357:
346:
342:
338:Owen Roberts
314:
302:
266:
245:US labor law
239:
238:
237:
227:Laws applied
184:
177:Owen Roberts
172:
160:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
305:February 14
285:closed shop
281:arbitration
273:labor union
115:. granted,
715:Categories
599:References
349:Hugo Black
181:Hugo Black
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:660; 1939
60:Citations
641:Text of
406:See also
311:Judgment
206:Majority
109:7th Cir.
676:Findlaw
658:Cornell
293:lockout
214:Dissent
128:Holding
111:1938);
706:
700:
697:
694:Justia
691:
688:
682:
679:
673:
670:
664:
661:
655:
433:,
336:, and
289:struck
187:
185:·
183:
175:
173:·
171:
163:
161:·
159:
80:L. Ed.
649:
437:
418:Notes
263:Facts
119:
97:Prior
651:U.S.
439:U.S.
121:U.S.
113:cert
102:F.2d
86:1093
73:more
65:U.S.
63:306
647:306
442:292
435:306
303:On
117:305
105:948
100:96
68:292
717::
645:,
575:^
554:^
340:.
332:,
107:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.