NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corporation
U. S. Supreme Court
1937
What is the Issue in Jones and
Laughlin?
• Is the National Labor Relations Act
Constitutional?
• Does the federal government have the
constitutional authority to establish a
scheme for the regulation of labor relations
among the employees of a private company
when those employees do not move across
state lines in the course of their
employment?
With what illegal actions was
J&L charged?
What were J & L’s responses to
the charge?
What was the disposition of the
case at the Board and Court of
Appeals levels?
Jones and Laughlin Quote
• http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcas
e.pl?court=us&vol=301&invol=1
Issue
• Is the National Labor Relations Act
Constitutional? Yes!
– Congress did not exceed authority under
commerce clause
– Size and scope of J&L’s activities means that
its labor relations problems would affect
interstate commerce
– Board will determine effect on interstate
commerce
7
What was Jones and Laughlin’s
behavior before the Board?
• “(Jones and Laughlin)then moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and, on denial of that motion,
respondent in accordance with its special
appearance withdrew from further
participation in the hearing.”
• Why do you think J & L behaved this way?
What was the Supreme Court’s
Response to J & L’s argument
that it had the right to conduct its
business in an orderly manner
free from arbitrary restraints?
Does the NLRA prevent the
employer from discharging
employees?
Was the NLRA one-sided? Did
it favor unions over employers?
How did the Court respond to J &
L’s argument that the NLRA
should be declared
unconstitutional because it denied
it due process?
Other Issues
• Right to Self-Organization a Fundamental Right
• Er may still exercise its legitimate rights to select
and discharge employees, but may not
discriminate on basis of exercise of Sec. 7 rights
• One-sidedness of Act does not make it
unconstitutional - Congress need not address all
evils at once
• Procedures are fair –
–
–
–
–
complaint
notice
hearing
evidence
court review
13
Summary
• Represented a broadening of the powers of
the federal government to regulate all
economic activity.
• Balancing of Rights of Employer with
Rights of Employees.
Dissent in Jones & Laughlin
• “The Court . . . departs from well-established principles. . . .
Upon the authority of those decisions, the Circuit Courts of
Appeals of the Fifth, Sixth and Second Circuits in the causes
now before us have held the power of Congress under the
commerce clause does not extend to relations between
employers and their employees engaged in manufacture . . .. The
three respondents happen to be manufacturing concerns-one
large, two relatively small. The act is now applied to each upon
grounds common to all. Obviously what is determined as to
these concerns may gravely affect a multitude of employers who
engage in a great variety of private enterprises-mercantile,
manufacturing, publishing, stock-raising, mining, etc. It puts
into the hands of a Board power of control over purely local
industry beyond anything heretofore deemed permissible.” (301
U.S. 76-77, 78)
Reconsideration: Return to “
Flow Concept?”
• “The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . (U.S.
Constitution)”
• Originalism – interpretations of constitution
should be based on what the authors of the
constitution meant when they wrote it
• Textualism – interpretations of the constitution
should be based on the text, nothing more
16
Compare Hughes (1937) and Thomas (1995):
“To regulate Commerce . . . among the
several States. . ..”
•
“Because there may be but indirect and
remote effects upon interstate commerce in
connection with a host of local enterprises
throughout the country, it does not follow that
other industrial activities do not have such a
close and intimate relation to interstate
commerce as to make the presence of
industrial strife a matter of the most urgent
national concern. When industries organize
themselves on a national scale, making their
relation to interstate commerce the dominant
factor in their activities, how can it be
maintained that their industrial labor relations
constitute a forbidden field into which
Congress may not enter when it is necessary
to protect interstate commerce from the
paralyzing consequences of industrial war?
We have often said that interstate commerce
itself is a practical conception. It is equally
true that interferences with that commerce
must be appraised by a judgment that does
not ignore actual experience.” (CJ Hughes
for Majority, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin, 301
U.S. 1, 41-42, 1937)
•
“At the time the original Constitution was
ratified, "commerce" consisted of selling,
buying, and bartering, as well as transporting
for these purposes. . . . . As one would expect,
the term "commerce" was used in
contradistinction to productive activities such
as manufacturing and agriculture. . . .
Moreover, interjecting a modern sense of
commerce into the Constitution generates
significant textual and structural problems.
For example, one cannot replace "commerce"
with a different type of enterprise, such as
manufacturing. . . .. Parts may come from
different States or other nations and hence
may have been in the flow of commerce at
one time, but manufacturing takes place at a
discrete site. Agriculture and manufacturing
involve the production of goods; commerce
encompasses traffic in such articles (U.S. v.
Lopez, U.S. Supreme Court, 1995, No. 931260, Justice Thomas dissent, all citations
omitted)
17
Canadian Labor Law Based on
the Flow Concept
• Most labor relations regulation in Canada under
jurisdiction of the provinces.
• All industries that do not directly move goods and
services between the provinces are regulated by
the provinces for labor relations purposes.
– Auto manufacturing - provinces
– Telecommunications - federal government
• British North American Act of 1867
Conservative or Liberal?
•
“It is gravely stated that experience teaches that if an employer discourages
membership in ‘any organization of any kind’ ‘in which employees participate,
and which exists for the purpose in whole or in part of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or conditions of work,’ discontent may follow and this in turn
may lead to a strike, and as the outcome of the strike there may be a block in
the stream of interstate commerce. Therefore Congress may inhibit the
discharge! Whatever effect any cause of discontent may ultimately have upon
commerce is far too indirect to justify congressional regulation. Almost
anything-marriage, birth, death-may in some fashion affect commerce.”
(National Labor Relations Board v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., 85
F.2d 1 2nd Cir., 1936)
• Defense of Marriage Act, 1996
– No State, . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other State. . . respecting a relationship between persons of the
same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . .
territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. `
– . . . the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman
as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite
sex who is a husband or a wife.’