NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1939 · Labor Law

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesStrikesReinstatementsit-down strikereinstatementreemployment

Facts

Fansteel committed unfair labor practices by interfering with union activity, attempting to foster a company union, using a labor spy, isolating the union president, and refusing on February 17, 1937 to bargain with a union that then had majority support in the appropriate unit. After that refusal, union members initiated a sit-down strike by occupying and holding two key company buildings; when ordered to leave, they refused and were discharged for the seizure and retention of the buildings. They remained in possession for days, defied a state-court injunction, violently resisted eviction, and were later removed and punished for contempt. The NLRB nevertheless ordered reinstatement with back pay for the strikers and certain employees who had aided them, along with other relief.

Issue

Whether the NLRB may, under the National Labor Relations Act, order reinstatement or reemployment of employees who were discharged for unlawfully seizing and holding the employer's buildings during a sit-down strike, or of employees who aided and abetted that unlawful occupation. Also, whether the Board could require the employer in the changed circumstances to bargain with Lodge 66 as the exclusive representative.

Rule

An employer's unfair labor practices do not excuse employees' unlawful seizure and occupation of the employer's property. The NLRA protects lawful self-organization and lawful strikes, but not force, trespass, or violence; therefore, employees who engage in such unlawful conduct may be discharged on that independent ground, and the Board's authority under § 10(c) to order affirmative action is remedial only and does not permit reinstatement or reemployment that would not effectuate the Act's policy of peaceful settlement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, Orion Forge Works unlawfully refused to bargain with a union that represented a majority of its production employees. In response, 60 employees remained inside the stamping shop after their shift ended, chained the doors from within, and refused repeated demands to leave until management recognized the union. Orion discharged them for seizing and holding the building.

If the labor board finds that Orion previously committed unfair labor practices, which is the best answer regarding an order requiring Orion to reinstate the discharged workers with back pay?

Explanation. The majority held that an employer's unfair labor practices do not excuse employees' unlawful seizure and occupation of the employer's property. A sit-down occupation is not a lawful strike but an unlawful compulsion by force, and discharge on that basis is independent of anti-union discrimination. Because § 10(c) is remedial, not punitive, the board cannot compel reinstatement of workers discharged for that misconduct. (Derived from NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. (1939).)