holding that illegal alien workers were “employees” under the Act, but that it was inappropriate to impose even a minimal backpay award without regard to the employees’ legal availability for work or actual economic losses
How later courts described this case
- holding that illegal alien workers were “employees” under the Act, but that it was inappropriate to impose even a minimal backpay award without regard to the employees’ legal availability for work or actual economic losses
- noting *1187 that the Board’s remedial authority includes the ability “to restore the situation ‘as nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained’ but for” any unfair labor practice (quoting Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 194, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941))
- upholding the NLRB's interpretation of the term "employee" under 29 U.S.C. § 152(3), and noting that the NLRD's "construction of that term is entitled to considerable deference, and we will uphold any interpretation that is reasonably defensible," id. at 891, 104 S.Ct. 2803
- stating that Board has broad discretionary power to fashion remedies for unfair labor practices subject to limited review
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Hernandez v. M/V Rajaan, 841 F.2d 582 (1988)
The court’s assumption that an illegal alien may collect lost wages and medical expenses based on United States rates is called into question by Sure-Tan, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 467 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 2803, 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984).
The opinion
Justice Powell,
with whom Justice Rehnquist joins,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I dissent from the Court’s finding that the illegal aliens involved in this case are “employees” within the meaning of that term in the National Labor Relations Act. It is unlikely that Congress intended the term “employee” to include — for purposes of being accorded the benefits of that protective statute — persons wanted by the United States for the violation of our criminal laws. I therefore would hold that the illegal alien workers are not entitled to any remedy. Given the Court’s holding, however, that they are entitled to the protections of the NLRA, I join Part IV of the Court’s opinion. *
Although the difference in the remedy approved by the Court and that urged in Justice Brennan’s opinion is essentially one of degree, the former provides less incentive for aliens to enter and reenter the United States illegally.