NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.
1938 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).[1] The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta[2][3][4] in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.[5]
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. | |
---|---|
Argued April 5–6, 1938 Decided May 16, 1938 | |
Full case name | National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. |
Citations | 304 U.S. 333 (more) 58 S. Ct. 904; 82 L. Ed. 1381; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 1097 |
Case history | |
Prior | 87 F.2d 611; 92 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1937) |
Holding | |
Striking workers continue to be employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and an employer commits an unfair labor practice when it replaces striking workers with new employees | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Brandeis, Butler, Stone, Black |
Cardozo and Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
National Labor Relations Act |
The Mackay doctrine, as the striker replacement portion of the ruling is known, is one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings in American labor law,[6][7][8][9] and has defined collective bargaining in the United States since its publication. "Mackay Radio was more than a decision that provided an instrumental method for a firm to replace economic strikers and to resist their return to employment after a strike. It was also a decision that established important practices that constituted the conduct of union-management bargaining during the post-New Deal Era."[10]
The ruling is also highly controversial, even more than 80 years later. It is strongly and uniformly condemned by labor unions, and resolutely defended by employers. Among academics in the political sciences and other related disciplines, "the doctrine continues to provoke the notice and the nearly universal condemnation of scholars."[11]