NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. - 306 U.S. 240, 59 S. Ct. 490 (1939)

Rule:

The fundamental policy of the National Labor Relations Act is to safeguard the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining, and thus by the promotion of industrial peace to remove obstructions to the free flow of commerce as defined in the Act. There is not a line in the statute to warrant the conclusion that it is any part of the policies of the Act to encourage employees to resort to force and violence in defiance of the law of the land. On the contrary, the purpose of the Act is to promote peaceful settlements of disputes by providing legal remedies for the invasion of the employees' rights. Elections may be ordered to decide what representatives are desired by the majority of employees in appropriate units as determined by the Board. To secure the prevention of unfair labor practices by employers, complaints may be filed and heard and orders made. The affirmative action that is authorized is to make these remedies effective in the redress of the employees' rights, to assure them self-organization and freedom in representation, not to license them to commit tortious acts or to protect them from the appropriate consequences of unlawful conduct.

Facts:

Frustrated with the employer's alleged interference with their right to organize, certain employees engaged in a "sit-down strike" by taking over two of the employer's buildings for 10 days despite a state court injunction. The National Labor Relations Board ordered the employer to reinstate those employees with back pay. The circuit court set aside that order. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue:

Could the National Labor Relations Board require the employer to reinstate the employees who engaged in a “sit-down strike”?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that nothing in the National Labor Relations Act required the employer to reinstate employees who had resorted to violence by engaging in a "sit-down strike" or who had aided and abetted those strikers. According to the Court, Congress recognized the right to strike, but this recognition plainly contemplated a lawful strike. The fact that the employer had previously engaged in unfair labor practices did not justify the employees' unlawful acts. To justify the seizure of an employer's buildings during a "sit-down strike" because of the existence of a labor dispute or of an unfair labor practice would be to put a premium on resort to force instead of legal remedies and to subvert the principles of law and order which lie at the foundations of society.