Marshall Field & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Headline: Labor Board back-pay order upheld, blocking an employer from deducting state unemployment benefits and barring the employer’s late challenge to the Board’s power because it failed to raise that objection earlier.
Holding: The Court affirmed enforcement of the Labor Board’s back-pay order, ruling the employer failed to present its challenge to the Board’s power before the Board and agreeing unemployment benefits are not deductible as earnings.
- Preserves full back pay awards without subtracting state unemployment benefits.
- Requires employers to raise Board-power objections before the Labor Board first.
- Limits courts from considering issues not raised before the Labor Board.
Summary
Background
An employer (the petitioner) was ordered by the Labor Board to compensate certain employees for lost wages after they were discriminately discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Paragraph 2(b) of the Board’s order required the employer to "make whole" those employees by paying wages they would normally have earned during the specified period, less their "net earnings." The Seventh Circuit enforced most of the Board’s order on consent and reserved the question whether the order allowed deduction of benefits the employees received under the Illinois Unemployment Compensation Act; the court construed the order as not permitting that deduction and entered an enforcement decree. The Supreme Court granted review.
Reasoning
The Court agreed with the lower court that the state unemployment benefits were plainly not "earnings" that could be deducted under Paragraph 2(b). But the Court would not decide whether the Board had authority to forbid such deductions because the employer never raised that power question before the Board. Section 10(e) requires objections to be presented to the Board first unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The employer’s only specific protest to the examiner’s report was a general claim that the examiner erred "in making each and every recommendation," which did not alert the Board to the specific authority challenge. Because the record does not show compliance with Section 10(e), the Court declined to review the Board-power issue and affirmed the decree.
Real world impact
The ruling enforces the back-pay award without deducting state unemployment benefits and makes clear employers must present power or authority objections to the Labor Board before asking courts to review them. A consent decree’s reservation of "jurisdiction" did not replace the statutory requirement to raise issues before the Board.
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?