Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy

1961-10-09

Headline: Military base commanders can bar a cafeteria cook from a naval plant without a prior hearing, as the Court upheld commanders’ power to revoke base access and left the exclusion in place.

Holding: The Court held that presidentially approved Navy regulations let a base commander summarily revoke a civilian worker’s badge and that this exclusion did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s requirement for notice and a hearing.

Real World Impact:

Lets base commanders revoke civilian workers’ access without pre-deprivation hearings.
Permits military installations to deny entry to contract employees for security reasons.
Leaves unions’ requests for base hearings subject to commanders’ discretion.

Topics: military base access, security requirements, due process, workplace exclusion

Summary

Background

A short-order cook who worked at a cafeteria on the Naval Gun Factory lost her identification badge after the base Security Officer concluded she failed to meet the installation’s security requirements. Her employer and union asked the base for a hearing, but the base commander refused. She sued federal officials to get her badge back and be readmitted to her job; lower courts ruled for the Government and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court first held that Navy Regulations approved by the President give a commanding officer clear authority to admit or exclude civilian workers on the installation. The Court then considered fairness rights under the Fifth Amendment (Due Process). It reasoned that the cook’s interest was only the privilege of entering and working at that specific military site and that the Government, acting as proprietor of its own installation, may exclude people to manage base safety. Because the exclusion did not appear to brand her with disloyalty and the reason was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory, the Court said a full trial-type hearing was not required.

Real world impact

The decision lets military commanders remove civilian contractors or employees’ access to a particular base without providing advance notice and a formal hearing in similar circumstances. It also leaves open that exclusions plainly based on race, religion, or other unconstitutional grounds would be unlawful. The ruling affirmed the lower courts and left the cook barred from that installation.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent argued that some notice and chance to respond were required because labeling someone a “security risk” can carry a lasting stigma, and that summary exclusion without explanation invites misuse.