Packard Motor Car Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Supreme Court
330 U.S. 485 (1947)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Packard Motor Car Company (Packard) (defendant) employed 1,100 foremen who supervised workmen. The foremen were supervised by Packard’s management. The Packard foremen decided to organize as a bargaining unit with the Foremen’s Association of America, a union representing supervisors. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff) certified the bargaining unit, finding that it was an appropriate unit under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA provided that employees, but not employers, were eligible for benefits under the act. The NLRA defined employee as any employee, and defined employer as anyone who acted solely in the interest of an employer. The NLRB reasoned that the foremen were employees because they had personal interests, such as those related to their wages and working conditions, that might conflict with the interests of Packard. Packard opposed the bargaining unit, arguing that the foremen were employers, not employees. The gist of Packard’s argument was that foremen should be considered employers to prevent the foremen from organizing and advancing their own, rather than Packard’s, interests. The NLRB ordered Packard to bargain with the foremen. The court of appeals affirmed the order. Packard appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
