Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB
305 U.S. 197 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act grants the National Labor Relations Board jurisdiction over intrastate employers whose labor disputes could have a close and substantial effect on interstate commerce. However, the Board's remedial power does not extend to invalidating collective bargaining agreements with an independent union that was not a party to the proceedings.
Facts:
- Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Consolidated Edison) and its affiliates were public utilities supplying nearly all the electric energy, gas, and steam in New York City and adjacent Westchester County.
- A significant portion of Consolidated Edison's energy was sold to instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce.
- These customers included interstate railroads for operating terminals and trains, the Port of New York Authority for the Holland Tunnel, and piers for transatlantic steamship companies.
- The companies also supplied power to interstate and foreign communication services, including telegraph, telephone, and transatlantic radio companies.
- Additionally, they supplied power to federal facilities such as lighthouses, post offices, and a customs house.
- A dispute arose between two rival unions, the United Electrical and Radio Workers of America (United) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), regarding representation of Consolidated Edison's employees.
- Consolidated Edison engaged in practices that favored the IBEW over the United, and subsequently entered into collective bargaining agreements with several IBEW local unions.
- The IBEW was an independent labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and its membership comprised over 80% of Consolidated Edison's eligible employees.
Procedural Posture:
- The United Electrical and Radio Workers of America filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Consolidated Edison Company.
- The NLRB issued a complaint, and after a hearing, found Consolidated Edison had engaged in unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB issued an order requiring the company to cease its practices, reinstate discharged employees, and desist from giving effect to its contracts with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
- Consolidated Edison (appellant) petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside the NLRB's order.
- The IBEW (appellant), which had not been a party before the NLRB, intervened in the Court of Appeals to petition for the order to be set aside.
- The NLRB (appellee) petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals for enforcement of its order.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals granted the NLRB's petition and enforced the order in full.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act grant the National Labor Relations Board jurisdiction over labor disputes at a public utility company whose operations are primarily intrastate but which supplies essential services to instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hughes
Yes, the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction because a labor dispute at the company would have a direct and substantial effect on interstate commerce. The criterion for federal power is the effect upon interstate commerce, not the source of the injury. A cessation of service due to industrial strife would instantly halt interstate railroads, communications, and shipping, which constitutes a sufficient basis for the federal government's protective power under the Commerce Clause. Congress is entitled to provide reasonable preventive measures through the National Labor Relations Act and does not have to wait for commerce to be disrupted before acting. However, the Board exceeded its authority in ordering the company to desist from giving effect to its contracts with the IBEW. The IBEW is an independent union, not a company-dominated one, and it was not given notice or a hearing before its valuable contract rights were invalidated, which violates basic principles of justice. The Board's power to order affirmative action is remedial, not punitive, and invalidating the contracts was not a necessary remedy for the company's unfair labor practices.
Dissenting - Justice Butler
No, the Board was without jurisdiction. The activities of both the employers and employees are exclusively local and intrastate, making this case indistinguishable from prior decisions like Schechter Corp. and Carter Coal Co., which held that the federal government cannot regulate local production and labor conditions. The majority's reliance on railroad rate cases is misplaced, as those involved direct conflicts between federal and state regulations necessary to protect interstate commerce, a situation not present here. As the state of New York has its own comprehensive labor relations act, there is no need or constitutional basis for federal intervention into this local matter.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Reed
Yes, the Board has jurisdiction over the company. However, the majority is wrong to conclude that the Board lacked authority to invalidate the contracts. The Board's finding that the contracts were the culmination of the company's illegal course of conduct to interfere with employee self-organization was supported by substantial evidence. To interpret the Act as powerless to nullify advantages gained through such unlawful interference is to withdraw the specific authority granted to the Board to take affirmative action. The IBEW was not an indispensable party, per NLRB v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, because the order runs against the employer, not the union, to remedy the employer's unfair labor practices. Therefore, the Board's order to cease giving effect to the contracts should have been upheld as a valid exercise of its remedial power.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadened the scope of the Commerce Clause as applied to labor relations, confirming that the National Labor Relations Act could reach seemingly local activities if their disruption would substantially affect interstate commerce. It established a key precedent for federal jurisdiction over local utilities and other industries critical to the national economic infrastructure. At the same time, the decision placed important procedural and substantive limits on the NLRB's remedial authority, distinguishing between punitive actions and legitimate remedies. It affirmed that the NLRB cannot invalidate contracts of an independent union without providing notice and a hearing, thereby establishing due process protections for unions that are not parties to an unfair labor practice charge but whose rights are implicated by the outcome.
Unlock the full brief for Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB