Opinion

Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

  • 338 U.S. 355
  • 70 S. Ct. 166
  • 94 L. Ed. 2d 161
  • 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2920
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed
Dec 12, 1949
Status
Published
Author
Reed
On the bench
Minton, Reed, Burton, Douglas
Cited by
50 cases

recognizing that the District Court rejected the government’s argument that employees were bound by their signed Notice of Personal Action which designated their positions as exempt.

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that the District Court rejected the government’s argument that employees were bound by their signed Notice of Personal Action which designated their positions as exempt.
  • "To achieve stability of labor relations was the primary objective of Congress in enacting the National Labor Relations Act."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Burton

dissent. In their opinion the adjustment between § 7 and § 8 (3) made by the National Labor Relations Board is permissible. The use of the closed-shop privilege to interfere with the free exercise of the laborers’ choice does not seem to them to be within the purpose of the Labor Act.

Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.