National Labor Relations Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc. (339 U.S. 563)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 15, 1950 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 339 U.S. 563 · 70 S. Ct. 826
- Docket
- No. 434
- Argued
- April 18, 1950
- Decided
- May 15, 1950
- Term
- October Term 1949
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Clark
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Black, Justice Reed, Justice Douglas, Justice Burton, Justice Clark (wrote), Justice Minton
- Dissenting
- Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice R. H. Jackson
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a proceeding brought by the National Labor Relations Board charging unfair labor practices of the respondent, Mexia Textile Mills, a manufacturer of cotton goods at Mexia, Texas, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. On the Board’s petition for enforcement of its cease and desist order, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit referred the case back to the Board with directions to take evidence and report whether the order had been complied with by the respondent; if so, whether the matter should not be dismissed as moot; and, if not, what recommendations the Board had to make. We granted certiorari upon the claim that the effect of the order of the Court of Appeals was at variance with previous decisions of this Court. 338 TJ. S. 909 (1950). The pertinent facts are these. In November 1944, the Board conducted an election at the respondent’s plant, in which the Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. O., received an overwhelming majority. The Board thereupon certified that Union as the exclusive representative of those production and maintenance employees who constituted the appropriate bargaining unit designated by the Board. In January 1947 the Union filed a charge with the Board complaining that respondent had refused…
Excerpt of a 23,894-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.