Colgate-palmolive-peet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. (338 U.S. 355)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 5, 1949 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 338 U.S. 355 · 70 S. Ct. 166
- Docket
- No. 47
- Argued
- November 17, 1949
- Decided
- December 5, 1949
- Term
- October Term 1949
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Minton
- Issue area
- Unions
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton (wrote), Justice Clark, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Black
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton (wrote), Justice Reed (wrote)
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Minton delivered the opinion of the Court. The question we have here is whether a closed-shop contract, entered into and performed in good faith, and valid in the state where made, protects an employer from a charge of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. Petitioner was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have violated §§ 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act. On petition for review and cross-petition of the Board for enforcement of its order, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a decree enforcing the Board’s order. We granted certiorari limited to the question of the construction of § 8 (3) of the Act in relation to this case, i. e., to examine the applicability of the so-called Rutland Court doctrine, here applied by the Board. The doctrine has been approved in the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, but disapproved in the Seventh Circuit. At the period of time in question in 1945, petitioner company was engaged in producing glycerin for war purposes. Petitioner has no record of antiunion or anti-organizational activities. Its employees were first organized and represented in 1936 by a union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. In 1938 the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, became the representative of petitioner’s employees. On July…
Excerpt of a 17,512-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.