Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: New Jersey General Assembly

DOCKET NO.: 81-1985
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

CITATION: 463 US 147 (1983)
ARGUED: Mar 22, 1983
DECIDED: Jun 24, 1983

ADVOCATES:
Lawrence M. Cohen - on behalf of the Petitioner
Norton J. Come - on behalf of the Respondents

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 22, 1983 in Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 24, 1983 in Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

The opinion in 81-1985 will be announced by Mr. Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

This case comes to us from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

It involves a question under the labor laws concerning picketing in a shopping center.

A union that was -- represented employees that were working under construction of a new store were engaged in labor dispute with the owner of the store to be built.

And in order to explain this to the public, they did some handbilling at the shopping center and urged the numbers to the public not to patronize any stores in the shopping center and the owner of the shopping center brought a -- filed a charge with the Labor Board claiming this was an unlawful secondary boycott.

The case presents three questions whether the statute itself is violated and if there is a violation, is the violation excused because the picketing comes within what is known as the publicity proviso, and thirdly, would it be protected by the First Amendment to the federal constitution even if it violated the statute.

The Court of Appeals held that the publicity proviso protected picketing and we have reviewed that portion of the case and decided the Court of Appeals was wrong that the publicity proviso is not a protection and therefore, we remanded the case for consideration of the other two issues and the opinion is unanimous.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Thank you, Justice Stevens.