stating that the word employee " 'takes color from its surroundings ... in the statute where it appears,' [citations omitted] and derives meaning from the context of that statute, which ‘must be read in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.' "
How later courts described this case
- stating that the word employee " 'takes color from its surroundings ... in the statute where it appears,' [citations omitted] and derives meaning from the context of that statute, which ‘must be read in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.' "
- meaning of the term “employee” under the National Labor Relations Act; noting also the disuni-formity that placing this mixed question in the law category would create even if cast as a rule of federal common law, what with the risk of multifarious pronouncements from the various circuits that would be left to develop it
- opining that referring to other domestic sovereigns’ legal definitions “would introduce variations into [a] statute’s operation as wide as the differences the forty-eight states and other local jurisdictions make in applying [a definition] for wholly different purposes”
- noting that U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. CITY OF SEATTLE 43 supervisors have “abandoned the ‘collective security’ of the rank and file voluntarily, because they believed the opportunities thus opened to them to be more valuable to them than such ‘security’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported overruled in part, on other grounds by Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) — not on the Supreme Court's list
Id. ("'[Wlhere the question is one of specific application of a broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must determine it initially, the reviewing court's function is limited.... [The agency's] determination ... is to be accepted if it has 'warrant in the records' and a reasonable basis in law.'" (quoting NLRB v. Hearst Publ'ns, Inc., 322 U.S. 111, 181, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed…
Supreme Court of the United StatesMar 24, 19922 citing opinionsother groundsin partunconfirmed confidenceRead itReported abrogated by statute, as recognized in National Labor Relations Board v. United Insurance Co. of America — not on the Supreme Court's list
322 U.S. Ill, 120, 64 S.Ct. 851, 855, 88 L.Ed. 1170 (1944), abrogated by statute as recognized in NLRB v. United Insurance Co. of America, 390 U.S. 254, 88 S.Ct. 988, 19 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1968), when used in federal statutes the term has been given the widest of readings, precluding application of any common definition.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Reed
concurs in the result. He is of the opinion that the test of coverage for employees is that announced by the Board in the matter of Stockholders Publishing Company, Inc., and Los Angeles Newsboys Local Industrial Union No. 75, C. I. 0., and other similar cases, decided January 9, 1941, 28 N. L. R. B. 1006, 1022-23.