National Labor Relations Board v. P. Lorillard Co.
Headline: Court enforces labor board order requiring a tobacco company to bargain with the union that held a majority when the company unlawfully refused, reversing a lower court’s new-election requirement.
Holding:
- Requires employers to bargain with unions that had majority when they unlawfully refused.
- Stops lower courts from replacing board remedies with new elections in such cases.
- Strengthens the labor board’s authority to decide appropriate remedies after unfair labor practices.
Summary
Background
P. Lorillard Company, a tobacco company, refused to bargain collectively with Pioneer Tobacco Workers’ Local Industrial Union No. 55 when that union had been duly selected as the bargaining representative of a majority of Lorillard’s employees. The National Labor Relations Board found that refusal was an unfair labor practice and ordered Lorillard to bargain with Local No. 55. When the Board sought enforcement, the federal court below agreed that Lorillard’s refusal was unlawful but thought that, because time had passed and conditions had changed, the Local might no longer represent a majority; the court therefore modified the Board’s order to require a new election to test majority support.
Reasoning
The Court explained that the Board had considered allegations that employees shifted to a rival independent association after Lorillard’s unlawful refusal to bargain. The Board concluded that to carry out the National Labor Relations Act’s policies, Lorillard must remedy its prior unlawful refusal by bargaining with the union shown to have held a majority on the date of the refusal. The Court said this remedial determination was for the Board to make and that the lower court erred in changing the Board’s order. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and directed enforcement of the Board’s original order.
Real world impact
The ruling requires employers to honor board remedies that restore bargaining with the union that held majority support when the employer acted unlawfully. It limits courts’ ability to substitute new elections when the Board has already weighed membership changes. Employers, unions, and the Board will look to the Board’s determinations when remedies for past unlawful bargaining refusals are at issue.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?