Belknap, Inc. v. Hale
United States Supreme Court
463 U.S. 491 (1983)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
When negotiations over a new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with Belknap, Inc. (defendant) reached an impasse, about 400 unionized workers struck. The same day, Belknap unilaterally granted a wage increase for those who stayed on the job. Belknap advertised for workers to “permanently replace” strikers, and each replacement signed a statement acknowledging employment as a “permanent replacement.” After the union filed unfair-labor-practice charges based on the unilateral wage increase, Belknap filed its own charges against the union and distributed a letter reassuring replacements they would remain permanent. When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Belknap, it again assured replacements their employment would remain unchanged. But the union and Belknap settled, agreeing to dismiss the charges and reinstate strikers, and Belknap laid off the replacements. Twelve laid-off replacements including Hale (plaintiffs) sued Belknap in Kentucky state court for misrepresentation and breach of contract. The court granted Belknap summary judgment, reasoning that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted the state-law claims. The appellate court reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.