National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local 449 (“Buffalo Linen”)

353 U.S. 87 (1957)

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

National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local 449 (“Buffalo Linen”)

United States Supreme Court
353 U.S. 87 (1957)

  • Written by Patricia Peters, JD

Facts

The Linen and Credit Exchange (the exchange), a consortium of eight linen suppliers in and around Buffalo, New York, employed truck drivers from Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449 (the union) (plaintiff) under successive contracts for 13 years. The latest contract was set to expire on April 30, 1953. Sixty days before that date, the union gave notice to the exchange that it wanted to negotiate changes in its contract. The negotiations continued past April 30, 1953, until the union planned a whipsaw strike—i.e., a series of strikes against certain employers, one by one —against each of the eight exchange members. On May 26, 1953, the union began striking at Frontier Linen Supply, Inc. The remaining seven members of the exchange laid off their truck drivers the next day but notified the union that they would reinstate the truck drivers if it ended the Frontier strike. The union and the exchange continued to negotiate. A week later, they reached an agreement. The union ended the Frontier strike, and the other seven members of the exchange reinstated the truck drivers they had laid off. The union filed an unfair-labor-practice (ULP) charge against the seven exchange members with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (defendant). The union claimed that the exchange had violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prohibit employers from interfering with employees’ right to self-organization. A trial examiner found the exchange guilty of the ULP, but the NLRB overruled the trial examiner after finding that the exchange had not interfered with the right to self-organize but had merely sought to defend itself against impending strikes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reasoning that Congress had never approved of multi-employer bargaining, reversed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, 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