Radio Officers’ Union v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 17 (1954)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Three appeals were consolidated for the Supreme Court’s consideration. In all three cases, the employers were not motivated by antiunion animus yet had been found by the National Labor Relations Board (the board) to have committed an unfair labor practice. In Teamsters, the union ran a hiring hall, referring drivers to an employer based on a seniority list containing union and nonunion members. The union placed one union member at the bottom of the referral list because he was in arrears on his membership dues, and he lost assignments as a result. In Radio Officers, the employer filled radio-officer positions from a union list containing members in “good standing.” The employer denied employment to a union member because he was not considered by the union to be in good standing. Finally, in Gaynor, the employer had a collective-bargaining agreement with a newspaper union and, under that agreement, gave a retroactive wage increase to union members only. One nonunion employee was denied the wage increase even though he was covered by the agreement. The Supreme Court was called on to decide whether the employers had committed unfair labor practices despite a lack of specific proof of intent to encourage or discourage union membership.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)
Concurrence (Frankfurter, J.)
Dissent (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.
