Respondent, a local distributor of fuel oil, purchased a
substantial amount of fuel oil and related products from a supplier
who had imported them from outside the State and who was concededly
engaged in interstate commerce.
Held: Respondent's activities and related unfair labor
practices "affected" commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, and therefore were within the jurisdiction of
the National Labor Relations Board. Pp.
371 U. S.
224-227.
297 F.2d 94 reversed.
PER CURIAM.
The Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, respondent herein, was found
by the National Labor Relations Board to have committed certain
unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151
et seq.
Jurisdiction before the Board was predicated upon the fact that
Reliance, a New York distributor of fuel oil whose operations were
local, [
Footnote 1] purchased
within the State a "substantial amount" of fuel
Page 371 U. S. 225
oil and related products from the Gulf Oil Corporation, a
supplier concededly engaged in interstate commerce. Most of the
products sold to Reliance by Gulf were delivered to Gulf from
without the State of New York, and, prior to sale and delivery to
Reliance, were stored, without segregation as to customer, in
Gulf's tanks located within the State. During the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1959, Reliance had gross sales in excess of
$500,000, [
Footnote 2] and,
during the calendar year 1959, it purchased in excess of $650,000
worth of fuel oil and related products from Gulf.
The Board adopted its trial examiner's findings that the
operations of Reliance "affected" commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and that the unfair labor practices found tended "to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce. . . ." 129 N.L.R.B. 1166, 1171, 1182. The Court
of Appeals reversed, 297 F.2d 94, because, in its view, the record
before the Board did not adequately demonstrate the existence of
jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the Board so that it might
"take further evidence and make further findings on the manner in
which a labor dispute at Reliance affects or tends to affect
commerce." The only issue before this Court is whether, on the
record before it, the Board properly found that it had jurisdiction
to enter an order against Reliance; the substantive findings as to
the existence of the unfair labor practices are not here in
dispute.
Under § 10(a) of the Act, the Board is empowered "to prevent any
person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in
section 8 of this title) affecting commerce." Section 2(6) defines
"commerce" to mean "trade, traffic,
Page 371 U. S. 226
commerce, transportation, or communication among the . . .
States . . . ," and § 2(7) declares:
"The term 'affecting commerce' means in commerce, or burdening
or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led
or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing
commerce or the free flow of commerce."
This Court has consistently declared that, in passing the
National Labor Relations Act, Congress intended to and did vest in
the Board the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitutionally
permissible under the Commerce Clause.
See, e.g., Guss v. Utah
Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1,
353 U. S. 3;
Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U.
S. 643,
322 U. S.
647-648;
Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.
S. 601,
306 U. S. 607.
Compare Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.
S. 468,
348 U. S. 480.
The Act establishes a framework within which the Board is to
determine
"whether proscribed practices would in particular situations
adversely affect commerce when judged by the full reach of the
constitutional power of Congress. Whether or no practices may be
deemed by Congress to affect interstate commerce is not to be
determined by confining judgment to the quantitative effect of the
activities immediately before the Board. Appropriate for judgment
is the fact that the immediate situation is representative of many
others throughout the country, the total incidence of which, if
left unchecked, may well become far-reaching in its harm to
commerce."
Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U.S. at
322 U. S. 648.
See also Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. at
306 U. S.
607-608.
That activities such as those of Reliance affect commerce and
are within the constitutional reach of Congress is beyond doubt.
See, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.
S. 111. Through the National Labor Relations Act,
". . . Congress has explicitly regulated not merely transactions
or goods in interstate commerce, but activities
Page 371 U. S. 227
which, in isolation, might be deemed to be merely local, but, in
the interlacings of business across state lines, adversely affect
such commerce."
Polish Alliance v. Labor Board, 322 U.S. at
322 U. S. 648.
This being so, the jurisdictional test is met here: the Board
properly found that, by virtue of Reliance's purchases from Gulf,
Reliance's operations and the related unfair labor practices
"affected" commerce within the meaning of the Act. The judgment of
the Court of Appeals accordingly must be, and is, reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the result.
[
Footnote 1]
In 1959, Reliance purchased a few hundred dollars worth of truck
parts in New Jersey, but the Board did not rely on such
transactions to sustain its assertion of jurisdiction.
[
Footnote 2]
Since the Board apparently treated Reliance as a "retail"
concern, this amount of gross sales met its self-imposed standard
for exercise of jurisdiction. 129 N.L.R.B. 1166, 1170-1171.