National Labor Relations Board v. J.M. Lassing
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
284 F.2d 781 (1960)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
J.M. Lassing (Lassing) (defendant) operated a chain of gas and service stations. Lassing trucked gas using its own equipment and truck drivers. During the second half of 1958, faced with mounting costs, Lassing analyzed whether it should switch to a common-carrier system of gas delivery. Lassing decided to change to a common carrier as soon as anything occurred that would increase costs and, in any event, no later than April 1, 1959, when its trucking licenses expired. On January 1, 1959, three of Lassing’s drivers joined a labor union (the union) (plaintiff). The union requested recognition and a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement. Prior to the set meeting, Lassing terminated the three drivers, explaining to them that Lassing was going to contract with a common carrier for gas transportation. Lassing refused to recognize the union, informing the union that Lassing had previously developed a plan to change operations, which the company would now implement due to the prospect of increased payroll costs. The National Labor Relations Board (the board) found that Lassing had committed an unfair labor practice, particularly by accelerating its plans to change operations once it found out that its truck-driving employees had joined a union. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
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.