National Labor Relations Board v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.
19 L. Ed. 2d 614, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2793, 389 U.S. 375 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Economic strikers who unconditionally apply for reinstatement at the conclusion of a strike remain employees and are entitled to reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions when they become available, unless the employer can demonstrate a legitimate and substantial business justification for its failure to rehire them.
Facts:
- Fleetwood Trailer Co. (Fleetwood) was a manufacturer of mobile homes.
- On August 6, 1964, following a breakdown in collective bargaining negotiations, about half of Fleetwood's employees went on strike.
- In response to the strike, Fleetwood curtailed its production schedule from 20 units to 10 units per week.
- The strike ended on August 18, 1964, and the union requested reinstatement for the striking employees.
- On August 20, six strikers applied for reinstatement but were told no jobs were available due to the production cutback.
- Fleetwood always intended to resume full production 'as soon as possible'.
- Between October 8 and 16, while the strikers were still available for work, Fleetwood hired six new employees for jobs the strikers were qualified to fill.
- The six strikers were eventually reinstated to their jobs between November 2 and December 14.
Procedural Posture:
- Six employees filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An NLRB Trial Examiner found Fleetwood Trailer Co. committed an unfair labor practice and recommended the strikers be made whole for lost wages.
- A three-member panel of the NLRB adopted the Trial Examiner's findings and issued an order against Fleetwood.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for enforcement of its order.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the intermediate appellate court) denied enforcement, siding with the employer.
- The NLRB (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. 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 an employer commit an unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by hiring new employees for vacant positions instead of reinstating qualified economic strikers who had previously made an unconditional application for reinstatement, when the positions were not available at the exact moment of their initial application but became available later?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Fortas
Yes. An employer commits an unfair labor practice by refusing to reinstate economic strikers when their jobs become available after they have made an unconditional application. Under the National Labor Relations Act, individuals on strike remain 'employees' until they have obtained other regular and substantially equivalent employment. A refusal to reinstate discourages the protected right to strike and is unlawful unless the employer can meet the burden of proving that its action was based on 'legitimate and substantial business justifications.' The right to reinstatement does not expire at the moment of application; it is a continuing right. If and when a job for which the striker is qualified becomes available, the striker is entitled to an offer of reinstatement. The Court rejected the lower court's holding that the right to a job is judged only as of the date of application, finding this view unsupported by the Act.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The Court reaches the correct result, but the reasoning is simpler than the majority's analysis of motivation and justification. The core issue is that the strikers never lost their status as 'employees' under the Act. The temporary production cutback caused by the strike itself is not a 'job abolition' that terminates their employee status. The employer's error was treating the strikers as mere applicants for new employment rather than as employees with a right to preference for their old jobs once those jobs reopened. Because the employer simply failed to recognize the strikers' legal status and its corresponding obligation, there is no need to analyze the employer's motive or business justifications.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strengthens the reinstatement rights of economic strikers under the National Labor Relations Act. It establishes that a striker's right to reinstatement is not a fleeting opportunity that depends on job availability at the precise moment of application, but a continuing right. By placing the burden of proof squarely on the employer to show a 'legitimate and substantial business justification' for not rehiring, the decision makes it more difficult for employers to use temporary, strike-related production slowdowns as a pretext to replace striking workers. The ruling solidifies the principle that an adverse impact on employee rights, absent such justification, constitutes an unfair labor practice, even without direct proof of anti-union animus.
