National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

306 U.S. 240 (1939)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

United States Supreme Court
306 U.S. 240 (1939)

  • Written by Patricia Peters, JD

Facts

Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. (Fansteel) (plaintiff) operated a manufacturing plant in North Chicago, Illinois. In 1936, a minority of Fansteel employees organized a union called Lodge 66. Fansteel’s superintendent refused to recognize Lodge 66. By February 17, 1937, a majority of Fansteel’s employees had joined Lodge 66, but Fansteel still would not bargain with Lodge 66. Lodge 66 then began a sit-down strike. Employees occupied two of Fansteel’s main buildings. When the occupiers refused to leave, Fansteel fired them. The next day, Fansteel obtained an injunction against the occupiers, which the occupiers ignored. The occupiers were then served a contempt order, and the sheriff tried and failed to arrest them. Finally, on February 26, the sheriff successfully arrested the occupiers, most of whom were fined and jailed. Later, Fansteel offered some of the strikers reinstatement and backpay but still would not recognize Lodge 66. In April 1937, over 90% of Fansteel employees, supported by Fansteel, voted to form a new union, Rare Metal Workers of America, Local No. 1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant) found that Fansteel had interfered in the formation of Rare Metal Workers and that most of Fansteel’s actions regarding Lodge 66 constituted unfair labor practices (ULPs). The NLRB ordered Fansteel to stop interfering with its employees’ right of self-organization, as guaranteed by the Wagner Act; to recognize and bargain exclusively with Lodge 66; and to offer all striking employees full reinstatement with backpay. Fansteel petitioned to overturn the NLRB order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The NLRB argued that the portion of its order requiring reinstatement of all striking workers was valid because Fansteel’s ULPs caused the strike and, under the act, employees striking to protest ULPs retained employee status. The NLRB also contended that it had the authority to reinstate rightfully discharged employees to “effectuate the policies of the act.” The Seventh Circuit overturned the NLRB order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, C.J.)

Concurrence (Stone, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Reed, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership