Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

Background

A mining company refused to hire several men because of their union affiliations after a 1935 strike that ended when the National Labor Relations Act took effect. Two applicants (Curtis and Daugherty) who had not been working for the company sought jobs after the strike, and thirty-eight strikers sought reemployment. The labor board found the company had discriminated in hiring and ordered job offers, reinstatements, and back pay; a federal appeals court modified parts of that order.

Reasoning

The central question was whether refusing to hire someone because of union membership violates the Act and whether the board can order remedies like offering jobs and paying lost wages. The Court relied on the Act’s history and purpose to protect worker organization, held that discrimination in hiring undermines collective bargaining, and interpreted the remedial provision to allow the board to take affirmative actions (including ordering offers of employment and back pay) to effectuate those policies. The Court also explained that detailed factual questions — such as whether a worker obtained a “substantially equivalent” job and how back pay should be adjusted for earnings or willful failure to mitigate — are matters the board must clarify and decide in the first instance.

Real world impact

The ruling means employers cannot lawfully refuse to hire people solely because they belong to a union. The board has authority to require employers to offer employment and to make workers whole for lost pay, but the board must explain its factual basis on particular issues before courts enforce remedies. Some remedial details were sent back to the board for further findings.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice agreed with the outcome but objected to narrowing the board’s reinstatement and back-pay powers; two Justices joined that view. Another Justice and the Chief Justice disagreed with the majority on the board’s authority to order hiring and back pay.