# National Labor Relations Board v. Boeing Co.

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 21, 1973 · 412 U.S. 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425304

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BOEING CO. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 21, 1973
- **Citations:** 412 U.S. 67; 83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2262; 93 S. Ct. 1952; 36 L. Ed. 2d 752; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 151
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burger
- **Judges:** Rehnquist, Rehnqüist, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Burger, Douglas, Blackmun
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425304

## Opinion text

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
dissenting.
It is odd, to say the least, to find a union urging on us severe limitations on NLRB authority, and telling us that state courts are the proper forum to resolve questions regarding the reasonableness of fines imposed on workers for violation of union rules. For years, there has been unrelenting union opposition to state court “intervention” into industrial disputes and union activities. We have been told cóuntless times that the “expertise” of the Labor Board, based on its overview and intimate familiarity with labor problems, is essential in this area.
A union must, of course, have some disciplinary powers or it would disintegrate. However, the power to discipline can easily turn from a means of enforcing valid *79 rules to an oppressive and coercive device of retribution, a weapon which, when used to extremes, may deprive a working man of his very means of sustenance. Whether a particular fine is required in a particular situation involves a weighing of the delicate balance of relations between the employers, employees, and the union involved. Such an intimate knowledge of labor relations has consistently been ascribed to the Board, often by the unions. It is the Board that deals with such matters on a daily basis. It is the Board that has the jurisdiction and experience to devise and employ national standards to govern union conduct; there are valid reasons for essential uniformity and consistency in the matters of fines. To isolate this sensitive subject and thrust it on the state courts is contrary to the entire history of the federal labor statutes and opens the door to a wide disparity of fines for the same conduct in different States.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425304. Public record. Not legal advice.