NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1944 · Administrative Law

322 U.S. 111 (1944)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawmixed questionsdeferenceNLRAemployeeindependent contractoreconomic factsadministrative deference

Facts

The respondents published four Los Angeles newspapers and distributed papers through several channels, including full-time street newsboys selling at established spots. The Board found that these regular vendors worked continuously, depended on the sales proceeds for their livelihood, received papers on credit, returned unsold papers for credit, and had their margins, locations, supply, hours, and selling conduct substantially influenced or supervised by the publishers through district managers. The publishers fixed retail prices and usually wholesale prices, assigned or approved selling spots, monitored attendance and diligence, imposed sanctions, and supplied equipment and placards. The Board concluded that these full-time spot newsboys were integral parts of the publishers' distribution system and therefore employees under the Act.

Issue

Whether regular full-time newsboys who sold newspapers on the streets at established spots were 'employees' within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, or instead fell outside the Act because common-law employee-independent contractor standards governed. A related issue was whether the Board validly selected the bargaining units it certified.

Rule

For purposes of the NLRA, the meaning of 'employee' is a matter of federal law derived from the statute's history, terms, and purposes, and in doubtful cases is determined broadly by underlying economic facts rather than by technical common-law classifications of employee versus independent contractor. When the Board applies that broad statutory term in the first instance, a reviewing court should accept the Board's determination if it has warrant in the record and a reasonable basis in law.

🔒

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.

Lakefront Bulletin Co., a fictional publisher in Cleveland, uses full-time sidewalk magazine vendors. The vendors work the same corners year-round, receive copies on credit, return unsold copies for credit, rely on the sales proceeds for most of their income, and must follow district supervisors' directions about locations, hours, and display methods.

If the NLRB finds these vendors are employees covered by the NLRA, which argument by Lakefront Bulletin Co. is weakest under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The weakest argument is that state common-law rules control. The majority held that "employee" under the NLRA is a matter of federal law derived from the statute's history, terms, and purposes, not from varying local common-law standards. In doubtful cases, the Board may look broadly to the underlying economic facts.