International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Locals Nos. 15, 17, 107, 108 & 111 v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co.

Background

Labor unions brought charges that the mining companies unlawfully refused to rehire certain workers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found unfair labor practices, ordered reinstatement of 209 employees with back pay, and adopted a special formula to compute those payments. The employers sought court review; the court modified and then enforced the Board’s order, and the companies began computing and tendering back pay under that decree.

Reasoning

Almost two years after the court decree, the Board asked the court to vacate the back-pay paragraphs and remand the case because the Board said it had misapplied the facts and the formula. The Supreme Court held the Board could not reopen a court-enforced decree simply because it later thought a different remedy would be better. The Court emphasized that the Act lets the Board change orders before the transcript is filed, but once a court enforces an order and the term expires, finality attaches and the Board cannot undo parts of the decree as of right.

Real world impact

The decision means employers and workers must treat court-enforced NLRB remedies as final unless a court permits reconsideration or a litigant brings a proper bill of review. The dissent warned this could greatly reduce recoveries for affected workers — citing the Board’s claim that the disputed formula cut what might have been roughly $800,000 in full back pay down to about $5,400 for the group.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Murphy dissented, arguing the back-pay formula was provisional and unexecuted, so the Board should get an opportunity to correct an inadequate remedy before final execution.