Cases by Issue - Bargaining

NFFE, Local 139 v. Department of the Interior

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-1184

Petitioner

NFFE, Local 139

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Department of the Interior

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 97-1243

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 86 (1999)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1998

Decided

Wednesday, March 3, 1999

Advocates

David M. Smith (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Gregory O'Duden (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Irving L. Gornstein (Department of Justice, on behalf of the respondents)

Facts of the Case

The National Federation of Federal Employees, a federal employees' union, proposed to include a provision obligating the Interior Department to negotiate midterm matters not in the original contract between the union and the Agency. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, that created the Federal Labor Relations Authority, requires federal agencies and their employees' unions to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a collective bargaining agreement. Initially, the Authority held that the good-faith bargaining clause did not extend to union-initiated proposals during the term of the basic contract. The Court of Appeals did not agree and, in turn, the Authority reversed its decision. The Interior Department refused the proposal on the ground that union-initiated midterm bargaining is inconsistent with the Statute. The Authority then ordered the Agency to comply with the bargaining.

Question

Can federal agencies be required to bargain with federal employees' unions over issues that arise during the duration of a contract?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NFFE, Local 139, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7101

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court ruled that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute gave the Federal Labor Relations Authority power to determine whether parties must engage in midterm bargaining. Justice Breyer wrote, "Congress delegated to the authority the power to determine -- within appropriate legal bounds...whether, when, where and what sort of midterm bargaining is required."

American Hospital Assn v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-97

Petitioner

American Hospital Assn

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

499 U.S. 606 (1991)

Argued

Monday, February 25, 1991

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1991

Advocates

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Respondents)

James D. Holzhauer (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-65

Petitioner

Fort Stewart Schools

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

495 U.S. 641 (1990)

Argued

Wednesday, January 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, May 29, 1990

Advocates

William E. Persina (on behalf of the Respondents)

Christopher J. Wright (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for FLRA, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7102

None

IRS v. FLRA

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-2123

Petitioner

IRS

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

FLRA

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 922 (1990)

Argued

Monday, January 8, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

Robert J. Englehart (on behalf of the Respondent Federal Labor Relations Authority)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gregory O'Duden (on behalf of the Respondent National Treasury Employees Union)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for IRS, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7101

None

NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-1685

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

494 U.S. 775 (1990)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, April 17, 1990

Advocates

James V. Carroll, III (on behalf of the Respondent)

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. v. Railway Executives

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1589

Petitioner

Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Railway Executives

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 87-1888

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

491 U.S. 490 (1989)

Argued

Wednesday, March 29, 1989

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1989

Advocates

John O'B. Clarke, Jr. (on behalf of Respondents)

Jeffrey P. Minear (as amicus curiae)

Richard L. Wyatt, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1715

Petitioner

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 409 (1988)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1988

Decided

Monday, April 4, 1988

Advocates

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the respondent)

Ruth E. Peters (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Aberdeen Proving Ground, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 5 U.S.C. 7117

None

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1208

Petitioner

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

482 U.S. 27 (1987)

Argued

Monday, March 2, 1987

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1987

Advocates

Louis R. Cohen (on behalf of the Respondent)

Ira Drogin (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NLRB, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

83-1416

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Action Automotive, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

469 U.S. 490 (1985)

Argued

Monday, October 29, 1984

Decided

Tuesday, February 19, 1985

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of Petitioner)

Stewart J. Katz (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for NLRB, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-818

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bildisco & Bildisco

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 82-852

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 513 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, October 11, 1983

Decided

Wednesday, February 22, 1984

Advocates

Jack M. Zackin (on behalf of Bildisco and Bildisco)

James R. Zazzali (on behalf of Local 408, IBT, etc)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the NLRB)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Bildisco & Bildisco, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Act or Rules, or Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978

None

Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1925

Petitioner

Transportation Union

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Long Island R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

455 U.S. 678 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, January 20, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, March 24, 1982

Advocates

Lewis B. Kaden (on behalf of the Respondent)

Joshua I. Schwartz (as amicus curiae)

Edward D. Friedman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Transportation Union, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 10: Tenth Amendment

None

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-931

Petitioner

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 404 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1981

Decided

Monday, January 11, 1982

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Respondent)

Sidney A. Coven (on behalf of the Petitioner)

James T. Grady (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-885

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 80-1103

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

454 U.S. 170 (1981)

Argued

Monday, October 5, 1981

Decided

Wednesday, December 2, 1981

Advocates

Warren D. Krebs (on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner)

Russ R. Mueller (on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (on behalf of the Petitioner/Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Yeshiva University

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-857

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Yeshiva University

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 78-997

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

444 U.S. 672 (1980)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, February 20, 1980

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-857)

Ronald H. Shechtman (on behalf of the Petitioner in No. 78-997)

Marvin E. Frankel (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Yeshiva University, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Catholic Bishop Of Chicago

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-752

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Catholic Bishop Of Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 490 (1979)

Argued

Monday, October 30, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, March 21, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Catholic Bishop Of Chicago, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:10:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-1267

Petitioner

Bayside Enterprises, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

429 U.S. 298 (1977)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, January 11, 1977

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Linden Lumber Division v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1231

Petitioner

Linden Lumber Division

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 73-1234

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

419 U.S. 301 (1974)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1974

Decided

Monday, December 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Linden Lumber Division, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:34:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

72-1598

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bell Aerospace Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

416 U.S. 267 (1974)

Argued

Monday, January 14, 1974

Decided

Tuesday, April 23, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for NLRB, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Burns Security Services

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:32:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

71-123

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Burns Security Services

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 71-198

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

406 U.S. 272 (1972)

Argued

Thursday, January 13, 1972

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1972

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Burns Security Services, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

70-32

Petitioner

Chemical Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pittsburgh Glass

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 70-39

Heard By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Decided By

Burger Court (1971-1972)

Opinion

404 U.S. 157 (1971)

Argued

Wednesday, October 20, 1971

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pittsburgh Glass, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Porter Co. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

230

Petitioner

Porter Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 99 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, January 15, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 2, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Porter Co., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:25 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

573

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

Gissel Packing Co.

Consolidation

Food Store Employees Union, Local No. 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., No. 691

Sinclair Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 585

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 575 (1969)

Argued

March 26-27, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Advocates

Lawrence G. Wallace (argued the cause for respondent in No. 585)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. United Insurance Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

178

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent

United Insurance Co.

Consolidation

No. 179

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

390 U.S. 254 (1968)

Argued

January 23-24, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, March 6, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Acme Industrial Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 432 (1967)

Argued

Monday, November 14, 1966

Decided

Monday, January 9, 1967

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for NLRB, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Metropolitan Ins. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metropolitan Ins. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 438 (1965)

Argued

Thursday, January 21, 1965

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Labor Board, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:22 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Fibreboard Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Labor Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 203 (1964)

Argued

Monday, October 19, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 14, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. General Motors

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

404

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

General Motors

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 734 (1963)

Argued

Thursday, April 18, 1963

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Katz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

222

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Katz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 736 (1962)

Argued

Thursday, March 22, 1962

Decided

Monday, May 21, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Insurance Agents

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Respondent

Insurance Agents

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

361 U.S. 477 (1960)

Argued

December 7-8, 1959

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Insurance Agents, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Fant Milling Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

482

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Fant Milling Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

360 U.S. 301 (1959)

Argued

Wednesday, May 20, 1959

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1959

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Labor Board, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:30:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Respondent

Borg-Warner Corp.

Consolidation

No. 78

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

356 U.S. 342 (1958)

Argued

November 20-21, 1957

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1958

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Labor Board, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lion Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Opinion

352 U.S. 282 (1957)

Argued

Monday, October 8, 1956

Decided

Tuesday, January 22, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Labor Board, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:27 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

486

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Truitt Mfg. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 149 (1956)

Argued

Thursday, March 29, 1956

Decided

Monday, May 7, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Labor Board, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Central State Univ. v. AAUP

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1071

Petitioner

Central State Univ.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

AAUP

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

526 U.S. 124 (1999)

Decided

Monday, March 22, 1999

Facts of the Case

To increase the amount of time that public university professors spend teaching, Ohio enacted Ohio Rev. Code Ann. section 3345.45. Central State University adopted a workload policy pursuant to section 3345.45. The university then notified its professors that it would not bargain over the issue of faculty workload. The professors' collective-bargaining agent filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that section 3345.45 created a class of public employees not entitled to bargain regarding their workload and that this classification violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. In response, the state argued that achieving equal workloads was necessary to recapture the decline in teaching and that collective bargaining produced variation in workloads. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the professors and found that no evidence linked collective bargaining to the decline in faculty time devoted to undergraduate teaching.

Question

Does Ohio statutory exemption of state university faculties' instructional workload standards from collective bargaining violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Central State Univ., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

No. In an 8-1 per curiam opinion, the Court held that "the Ohio Supreme Court's holding cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause." "One of [section 3345.45's] objectives was to increase the time spent by faculty in the classroom; the imposition of a faculty workload policy not subject to collective bargaining was an entirely rational step to accomplish this objective," stated the opinion. "Under our precedent," the court concluded "this is sufficient to sustain the exclusion of university professors from the otherwise general collective-bargaining scheme for public employees." Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.