NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co.
| National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 11–12, 1939 Decided February 27, 1939 | |
| Full case name | National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. |
| Citations | 306 U.S. 292 (more) 59 S. Ct. 501; 83 L. Ed. 660; 1939 U.S. LEXIS 1093 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 96 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1938); cert. granted, 305 U.S. 583 (1938). |
| Holding | |
| Decisions of the NLRB must be based on substantial evidence; third-party requests for collective bargaining do not constitute a request for bargaining under the NLRA. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stone, joined by Hughes, McReynolds, Butler, Roberts |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Reed |
| Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| National Labor Relations Act | |
NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a US labor law case where the US Supreme Court held 5-to-2 that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.