Mastro Plastics Corp. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement does not waive the right to strike against serious unfair labor practices by the employer, and the statutory 60-day cooling-off period in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act applies only to economic strikes, not to strikes protesting such employer misconduct.
Facts:
- Mastro Plastics Corp. and French-American Reeds Manufacturing Co., Inc. ('Mastro') had a collective bargaining agreement with the Carpenters union, set to expire on November 30, 1950.
- In August 1950, a rival union began an organizing campaign, which Mastro bitterly opposed.
- Mastro attempted to replace the incumbent Carpenters union with a different union, Local 318, by coercing its employees to sign membership cards for Local 318 and paying them for time spent on that union's campaign.
- On October 10, 1950, while Mastro was engaging in this conduct, the Carpenters union provided a timely notice of its desire to modify the existing contract upon its expiration, thus initiating the 60-day statutory waiting period under § 8(d) of the NLRA.
- On November 10, 1950, Mastro's president summarily fired Frank Ciccone, a long-time employee, because of his activity supporting the incumbent Carpenters union.
- Immediately following Ciccone's discharge, the employees went on strike to protest Mastro's cumulative unfair labor practices.
- On March 9, 1951, the striking employees made an unconditional offer to return to work, which Mastro ignored, refusing to reinstate any of the strikers.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 1951, the Carpenters union filed unfair labor practice charges against Mastro Plastics Corp. ('Mastro') with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's general counsel issued a complaint alleging that Mastro violated the National Labor Relations Act.
- An NLRB trial examiner found Mastro had committed unfair labor practices and recommended that the striking employees be reinstated with back pay.
- The full NLRB, with two members dissenting in part, adopted the examiner's findings and issued an order requiring Mastro to reinstate the employees.
- Mastro, the respondent, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review, and the NLRB, the petitioner, cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order.
- Mastro Plastics Corp., as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
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 a general no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement or Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit employees from engaging in a strike solely in protest of an employer's serious unfair labor practices?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burton
No, neither the contract nor the statute prohibits employees from striking against their employer's serious unfair labor practices. A general contractual waiver of the right to strike applies to economic disputes over the terms and conditions of employment, not to strikes provoked by an employer's unlawful conduct aimed at destroying the foundation of the collective bargaining relationship itself. To waive the right to strike over such fundamental unfair labor practices requires a clear and unmistakable expression, which is absent here. Similarly, the loss-of-status penalty in § 8(d) of the NLRA for striking within the 60-day waiting period is limited to strikes seeking to 'terminate or modify' a contract (economic strikes), not strikes protesting illegal employer actions. To hold otherwise would create the incongruous result of immunizing an employer's unlawful conduct during the critical period of contract renegotiation, undermining the core protections of the Act.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes, the plain language of § 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act dictates that the striking employees lost their protected status. The statute states that 'Any employee who engages in a strike within the sixty-day period specified in this subsection shall lose his status as an employee.' This language is unambiguous and contains no exception for strikes caused by employer unfair labor practices. The loss-of-status provision would be superfluous if it applied only to economic strikers, as they could already be discharged for engaging in an unprotected strike. The provision's only meaningful application is to unfair labor practice strikers, indicating a congressional intent to prohibit all strikes, regardless of cause, during the crucial 60-day negotiating period to promote industrial peace.
Analysis:
This decision created the crucial distinction between 'economic strikes' and 'unfair labor practice (ULP) strikes,' establishing that the latter receive significantly greater protection under the National Labor Relations Act. It sets a high bar for finding a waiver of the right to strike over serious ULPs, requiring an explicit contractual clause rather than a general no-strike provision. By insulating ULP strikers from both general contract waivers and the statutory cooling-off period's penalties, the Court preserved a vital tool for unions to combat employer conduct that threatens their very existence, thereby reinforcing the NLRA's primary goal of protecting employee self-organization.
Unlock the full brief for Mastro Plastics Corp. et al. v. National Labor Relations Board