Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc.
365 U.S. 695 (1961)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc., 365 U.S. 695 (1961)

Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., Inc.

No. 339

Argued March 1, 1961

Decided April 17, 1961

365 U.S. 695


A collective bargaining agreement required employers to comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law, and provided that foremen must be union members and do the hiring, but that they should be responsible only to the employers. The National Labor Relations Board found that certain union foremen had discriminated against certain nonunion employees, and it concluded that the union and an employer had violated § 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and § 8(a)(1) and (3), respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by their contract arrangements and by operating an unlawful closed shop and preferential hiring system; and it ordered, inter alia, that certain employees be reimbursed for dues and assessments paid to the union during the period covered by the complaint. The Court of Appeals denied enforcement of the Board's order.


1. The Board was not authorized under § 10(c) to require reimbursement of dues and assessments paid to the union. Carpenters Local 60 v. Labor Board, ante, p. 365 U. S. 651. P. 365 U. S. 699.

2. The contract was not unlawful on its face, even though the foremen -- who were union members -- were required to do the hiring. Pp. 365 U. S. 699-700.

3. The requirement that employers comply with union rules "not in conflict with" federal law was not unlawful per se. P. 365 U. S. 700.

4. The Court of Appeals did not go beyond the scope of review entrusted to it in holding that the record did not support the Board's finding that, in practice, respondents maintained and enforced closed shop and preferential hiring conditions which violated the Act. Pp. 365 U. S. 700-703.

279 F.2d 323, affirmed.

Page 365 U. S. 696

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.