Cases by Issue - Dispute

BE & K Construction Co. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:46:08 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-518

Petitioner

BE & K Construction Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

536 U.S. 516 (2002)

Argued

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

Decided

Monday, June 24, 2002

Advocates

Maurice Baskin (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Facts of the Case

In filing suit against a group of unions, BE&K; Construction Company alleged that the unions had engaged in lobbying, litigation, and other concerted activities in order to delay a project it had been hired for because it employed nonunion workers. After BE&K; lost on or withdrew each of its claims, the National Labor Relations Board issued an administrative complaint, alleging that BE&K;, by filing and maintaining its lawsuit, had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prohibits employers from restraining, coercing, or interfering with employees' exercise of rights related to self-organization, collective bargaining, and other concerted activities. Finding that the lawsuit was filed to retaliate against the unions, whose conduct was protected under the NLRA, the Board ordered BE&K; to cease and desist from prosecuting such suits. In granting the Board's enforcement petition, the Court of Appeals held that because the Judiciary had already found BE&K;'s claims against the unions unmeritorious or dismissed, evidence of a simple retaliatory motive sufficed to adjudge BE&K; of committing an unfair labor practice.

Question

Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the National Labor Relations Board may impose liability on an employer for filing a losing retaliatory lawsuit, even if the employer could show the suit was not objectively baseless?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for BE & K Construction Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Yes. In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Board lacked authority to assess liability under the standard of prosecuting an unsuccessful suit with a retaliatory motive. The Court reasoned that the Board's definition of a retaliatory suit as one brought with a motive to interfere with the exercise of protected NLRA rights covers a substantial amount of genuine petitioning. "Because there is nothing in the statutory text indicating that [the NLRA] must be read to reach all reasonably based but unsuccessful suits filed with a retaliatory purpose, we decline to do so. Because the Board's standard for imposing liability under the NLRA allows it to penalize such suits, its standard is thus invalid," wrote Justice O'Connor.

National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corporation Of America

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

92-1964

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Health Care & Retirement Corporation Of America

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

511 U.S. 571 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1994

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1994

Advocates

Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Respondent)

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Health Care & Retirement Corporation Of America, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:37 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-544

Petitioner

First National Maintenance Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

452 U.S. 666 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1981

Decided

Monday, June 22, 1981

Advocates

Norton J. Come (on behalf of the Respondent)

Sanford E. Pollack (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for First National Maintenance Corp., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-968

Petitioner

Detroit Edison Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

National Labor Relations Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

440 U.S. 301 (1979)

Argued

Monday, November 6, 1978

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1979

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Detroit Edison Co., 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Oil Workers v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:45 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

74-1254

Petitioner

Oil Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mobil Oil Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 407 (1976)

Argued

Monday, March 29, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Oil Workers, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

City Of Charlotte v. Firefighters

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-250

Petitioner

City Of Charlotte

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Firefighters

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 283 (1976)

Argued

Wednesday, March 3, 1976

Decided

Monday, June 7, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for City Of Charlotte, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:09:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-631

Petitioner

Howard Johnson Co.

Respondent

Hotel Employees

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Opinion

417 U.S. 249 (1974)

Argued

March 19-20, 1974

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1974

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Howard Johnson Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Railway Clerks v. Florida E. C. R. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:55 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

750

Petitioner

Railway Clerks

Respondent

Florida E. C. R. Co.

Consolidation

No. 782

No. 783

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

384 U.S. 238 (1966)

Argued

Wednesday, April 20, 1966

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Florida E. C. R. Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Railway Labor

None

Labor Board v. Brown

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:09 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Brown

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 278 (1965)

Argued

Tuesday, January 19, 1965

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Textile Workers v. Darlington Co.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Textile Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darlington Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 41

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

380 U.S. 263 (1965)

Argued

Wednesday, December 9, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 29, 1965

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

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

None

Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:42 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reliance Fuel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

371 U.S. 224 (1963)

Argued

Monday, December 3, 1962

Decided

Monday, January 7, 1963

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

Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Retail Clerks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lion Dry Goods

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 17 (1962)

Argued

Wednesday, January 17, 1962

Decided

Monday, February 26, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Retail Clerks, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Communications Workers v. N. L. R. B.

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

Case Basics

Docket No.

418

Petitioner

Communications Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

N. L. R. B.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

362 U.S. 479 (1960)

Argued

Monday, April 18, 1960

Decided

Monday, May 2, 1960

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for N. L. R. B., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

General Electric Co. v. Local 205

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

276

Petitioner

General Electric Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Local 205

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 547 (1957)

Argued

Tuesday, March 26, 1957

Decided

Sunday, June 2, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Local 205, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

211

Petitioner

Textile Workers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Lincoln Mills

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 448 (1957)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Textile Workers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Goodall-Sanford v. Textile Workers

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

262

Petitioner

Goodall-Sanford

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Textile Workers

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 550 (1957)

Argued

Monday, March 25, 1957

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1957

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Textile Workers, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Labor-Management Relations

None

Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:59 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

103

Petitioner

Labor Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Truck Drivers Union

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1956-1957)

Decided By

Warren Court (1957-1958)

Opinion

353 U.S. 87 (1957)

Argued

Thursday, January 17, 1957

Decided

Monday, April 1, 1957

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