NLRB v Joes & Laughlin Steel Corp

NLRB v Joes & Laughlin Steel Corp - commerce. The...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1937 I. Facts a. With the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress determined that labor-management disputes were directly related to the flow of interstate commerce and, thus, could be regulated by the national government. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board charged the Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. with discriminating against employees who were union members. b. II. Legal Questions presented a. Was the Act consistent with the Commerce Clause? b. III. Answers a. Yes. The Court held that the Act was narrowly constructed so as to regulate industrial activities which had the potential to restrict interstate
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: commerce. The justices abandoned their claim that labor relations had only an indirect effect on commerce. Since the ability of employees to engage in collective bargaining (one activity protected by the Act) is "an essential condition of industrial peace," the national government was justified in penalizing corporations engaging in interstate commerce which "refuse to confer and negotiate" with their workers. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. Form of argument b. Legal doctrines V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2010 for the course PLS 459 taught by Professor Lermack during the Fall '09 term at Bradley.

Page1 / 2

NLRB v Joes & Laughlin Steel Corp - commerce. The...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online