NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Labor Law

389 U.S. 375 (1967)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawstriker reinstatement rightseconomic strikersreinstatementemployee statuslegitimate and substantial business justificationsNLRA § 2(3)NLRA § 8(a)(1)

Facts

After a collective bargaining breakdown, about half of Fleetwood's approximately 110 employees went on strike, and the company reduced production from 20 to 10 units per week. When the union ended the strike on August 18, 1964, and requested reinstatement, Fleetwood said it could not reinstate the strikers immediately because production had been curtailed, though it intended at all times to return to full production as soon as possible. Six strikers applied for reinstatement on August 20 and repeatedly thereafter; no jobs were available on August 20. But between October 8 and 16, Fleetwood hired six new employees for jobs the strikers were qualified to perform, and only later, between November 2 and December 14, reinstated the six strikers.

Issue

Whether an employer commits an unfair labor practice by failing to reinstate economic strikers when no jobs are available on the date they first apply, but later hires new employees into positions the strikers are qualified to fill. More specifically, does a striker's right to reinstatement expire if positions are unavailable at the precise moment of the initial application?

Rule

A striker who remains an employee under NLRA § 2(3) is entitled to reinstatement when a job for which he is qualified becomes available, unless the employer shows legitimate and substantial business justifications for refusing reinstatement. The right to reinstatement does not depend on job availability at the precise moment of the striker's first application and cannot be defeated by technicalities relating to application; the employer bears the burden of proving justification.

🔒

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.

Red Mesa Cabinets, a fictional manufacturer in Albuquerque, New Mexico, faced an economic strike after bargaining failed. The strike ended on June 1, and four strikers immediately asked to return, but the company had temporarily cut production and said no openings existed that day; the four workers kept calling every week to say they were available. In August, Red Mesa hired four brand-new workers into assembly jobs the strikers were qualified to perform.

Did Red Mesa likely commit an unfair labor practice by hiring the new workers instead of first offering the assembly jobs to the former strikers?

Explanation. The majority held that a striker who remains an employee is entitled to reinstatement when a job for which the striker is qualified becomes available. That right does not expire merely because no job existed on the date of the first application. Because the workers continued to make known their availability and the employer later hired outsiders into positions they could perform, the employer would violate the Act unless it proved a legitimate and substantial business justification. Antiunion motive need not be shown.