South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers
United States Supreme Court
425 U.S. 800 (1976)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
South Prairie Construction Co. (South Prairie) and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. (Kiewit) (defendants) were wholly owned subsidiaries of Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. (PKS). Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers (the union) (plaintiff) had a collective-bargaining agreement with Kiewit. South Prairie and Kiewit were engaged in highway construction in Oklahoma. Historically, PKS used Kiewit as its union highway contractor to bid on jobs in Oklahoma, but in 1972, PKS activated South Prairie, its nonunion subsidiary, to do business in Oklahoma as well. The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (the board), alleging that South Prairie and Kiewit had violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to apply the terms of the union’s contract with Kiewit to South Prairie’s employees. The union argued that Kiewit and South Prairie constituted a single “employer” under the act and that South Prairie was obligated to recognize the union as all the employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining representative. The board found that Kiewit and South Prairie were separate employees and dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals reversed, deciding on the facts presented that Kiewit and South Prairie were a single employer and, moreover, that their combined employees were an appropriate bargaining unit under the act. The matter came before the Supreme Court.
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.