Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Howell Chevrolet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Howell Chevrolet Co. v. Nat’l Labor Rels. Bd., 346 U.S. 482 (1953)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1953-12-14
Topic
general

Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Black, announced by Mr. Justice Reed. The petitioner Howell Chevrolet Company retails Chevrolet automobiles and parts in Glendale, California. After hearings, the National Labor Relations Board found Howell guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with its employees and intimidating them in various ways in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. * An appropriate order was issued. 95 N.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Howell Chevrolet Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
51 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Labor & Employment Law — Jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board The National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over a local retail automobile dealer, and may apply the National Labor Relations Act to it, where the dealer operates as an integral part of the manufacturer's national system of distribution, even though the dealer's own business is local in character. 346 U.S. at 482–484
  2. Labor & Employment Law — Effect on Commerce Under §§ 10(a) and 2(7) of the Labor Relations Act, the Board is empowered to prevent any person from adversely affecting commerce by unfair labor practices that tend to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce. 346 U.S. at 483
  3. Labor & Employment Law — Effect on Commerce — Integral Part of National Distribution System A local retail dealer whose unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening or obstructing interstate commerce falls within the Board's jurisdiction where the evidence shows the dealer is an integral part of the manufacturer's national system of distribution; such evidence includes that a substantial percentage of the merchandise the dealer purchased was manufactured in other states and shipped interstate, that the purchases were substantial in amount, and that the manufacturer closely supervised and controlled the dealer's local establishment through a detailed dealer selling agreement reserving sweeping control over the business. 346 U.S. at 483–484
HOWELL CHEV. CO.v. LABOR BOARD,346 U.S. 482(1953)
74 S.Ct. 214
HOWELL CHEVROLET CO.v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
No. 34.
Argued November 12, 1953.
Decided December 14, 1953.
On the facts in this case, the National Labor Relations Actheldapplicable to a local retail automobile dealer operating as an integral part of the manufacturer's national system of distribution. Pp. 482-484.204 F.2d 79, affirmed.
Erwin Lertenargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief wasFrederick A. Potruch.Marvin E. Frankelargued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief wereActing Solicitor GeneralStern, George J. Bott, David P. FindlingandDominickL. Manoli.
Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, announced by MR. JUSTICE REED.
The petitioner Howell Chevrolet Company retails Chevrolet automobiles and parts in Glendale, California. After hearings, the National Labor Relations Board found Howell guilty of unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain with its employees and intimidating them in various ways in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.fn*An appropriate order was issued. 95 N.L.R.B. 410. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board's order,204 F.2d 79, rejecting the contention that the Act could not be applied to Howell. On similar facts the Sixth Circuit held that the Labor Board had no jurisdiction over a local Ford automobilePage 483dealer.Labor Boardv.Bill Daniels, Inc.,202 F.2d 579. We granted certiorari to consider the single question presented by petitioner — whether the Act is applicable to retail automobile dealers like Howell.345 U.S. 955.

Sections 10(a) and 2(7) of the Labor Act empower the Board to prevent "any person" from adversely "affecting commerce" by unfair labor practices "tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce." The Board found that Howell's unfair labor practices tended to do this. Among others, the following facts underlie that finding:

Howell bought its new Chevrolets from a General Motors assembly plant located in California and its spare parts and accessories were delivered to it from General Motors warehouses in California. Forty-three percent of all this merchandise was manufactured in other states and shipped into California for assembly or distribution. During 1949 Howell's purchases from General Motors exceeded $1,000,000.

Howell's local retail establishment was closely supervised by General Motors. Sweeping control of the business was reserved by General Motors in a "Direct Dealer Selling Agreement." Howell had to sign this agreement to get his "non-exclusive privilege of selling new Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis" and "parts and accessories." The agreement required Howell to make varied and detailed reports about his business affairs, to devote full time to Chevrolet sales, to keep his sales facilities at a location and conduct the business in a manner that satisfied General Motors, to permit General Motors to inspect Howell's books, accounts, facilities, stocks and accessories and to keep such uniform accounting systems as General Motors might prescribe. Many other terms of the agency agreement also emphasized the interdependence of Howell's local and General Motors' national activities.Page 484

All this evidence caused the Board to conclude that Howell was "an integral part" of General Motors' national system of distribution. Under these circumstances the Board was justified in finding that Howell's repeated unfair labor practices tended to lead to disputes burdening or obstructing commerce among the states. It follows that the Board had jurisdiction to act under the facts it found.Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents.Page 485
  1. Page 48261 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 151et seq. ↩