National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Co.
United States Supreme Court
416 U.S. 267 (1974)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Bell Aerospace Co. (Bell) (plaintiff) employed buyers to supply its factories. Bell’s buyers wished to unionize but could not, because buyers were considered managerial employees by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant). The NLRB had prohibited managerial employees from unionizing, deeming those employees too entwined with management to come within the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In an NLRB adjudication arising from agitation to unionize by the buyers at Bell, the NLRB determined that (1) the NLRA allowed the unionization of managerial employees except for those whose participation in a union would create a conflict of interest with their work responsibilities and (2) buyers were not necessarily managerial employees, and indeed Bell’s buyers were not managerial employees. The NLRB therefore allowed Bell’s buyers to unionize. Bell petitioned for review of the NLRB’s bargaining order, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of the order. The Second Circuit denied enforcement, concluding that (1) Congress intended to exclude all managerial employees from the NLRA’s protections, not just those for whom the protection would create a conflict of interest, and (2) the NLRB could not change its long-standing policy of classifying buyers as managerial employees via adjudication and instead needed to use notice-and-comment rulemaking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.