Supreme Court of the United States
National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufacturing Co.
April 9, 1962369 U.S. 404
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to enforce NLRB reinstatement orders, holding that the appellate court must apply the uniform substantial‑evidence standard articulated in Universal Camera rather than the special credibility test from Tex‑O‑Kan; the cases were remanded for reconsideration. Justice Frankfurter’s dissent argued the majority mischaracterized the lower courts’ approach and would have affirmed the judgments.
Holding
- Whether the Fifth Circuit erred by applying the Tex‑O‑Kan credibility rule to reinstatement orders. The Fifth Circuit’s use of the Tex‑O‑Kan rule was erroneous; appellate review must follow the substantial‑evidence standard articulated in Universal Camera, and the reinstatement orders should be enforced.
- Whether a uniform substantial‑evidence standard applies to all NLRB orders. All NLRB orders, including those requiring reinstatement with back pay, are subject to the same substantial‑evidence standard; the appellate court must not apply a distinct rule for reinstatement cases.
Docket 77
Cited authorities
- Rule 52
- 29 U.S.C. § 158
- 29 U.S.C. § 160
- 29 U.S.C. § 158
- 29 U.S.C. § 160
- 5 U.S.C. § 1009
- 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1020
Cited by
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. New England Web, Inc., Respondents
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Davidson Rubber Company, Respondent
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. New England Tank Industries, Inc., Respondent
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. United States Air Conditioning Corporation, Respondents
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Respondent
- Rikal, Inc., Rikal West, Inc. (a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Rikal, Inc.), Petitioner v. National Labor Relations…
- Financial Institution Employees of America, Local No. 1182, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers…
- National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. Horizon Air Services, Inc., Respondent