National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO

PETITIONER: National Labor Relations Board
RESPONDENT: Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO
LOCATION: Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters

DOCKET NO.: 73-370
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 417 US 1 (1974)
ARGUED: Mar 18, 1974 / Mar 19, 1974
DECIDED: May 20, 1974

ADVOCATES:
Daniel M. Friedman - for petitioner
Mozart G. Ratner - for respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 19, 1974 in National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 18, 1974 in National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - May 20, 1974 in National Labor Relations Board v. Food Store Employees Union, Local 347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice Brennan has two opinions for the Court to announce.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

The first of the cases is Number 73-370, National Labor Relations Board versus the Food Store Employees Union.

In this case, the National Labor Relations Board rejected the argument of respondent Union, the charging party in this unfair labor practice case, that the remedy ordered by the Board should include a provision, ordering the employer to reimburse the Union for its litigation expenses.

The Union sought review of that refusal in the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia circuit, and I have “agreed” with the Board, but instead of remanding the case to the Board for further consideration, the Court itself enlarged the Board's order to add a provision requiring the employer to pay not only the Union but also the Board the costs and expenses incurred by each of them in connection with the litigation.

The Courts of Appeals, under Sections 10 (e) and (f) of the Act, have authority, and I quote the statue, to “make and enter a decree modifying, and enforcing as so modified” Board orders.

What we hold in this case is the Court of Appeals action in enlarging the Board's remedies for the reasons expressed in our opinion, was an improper exercise of that authority.

We, therefore, unanimously reverse so much of the Court of Appeals judgment, as enlarged the Board's order.