Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

May Department Stores Co., Doing Business As Famous-barr Co., v. National Labor Relations Board

• 1945 • 326 U.S. 376 • Stone Court
The case of May Department Stores Co., doing business as Famous-Barr Co., v. National Labor Relations Board in 1945 revolved around the issue of labor rights and union representation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), upholding its decision that May Department Stores had violated the Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, by refusing to bargain with a duly elected representative from their employees' chosen union. The company...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Stone Court
Term: 1945
Docket: 39
326 U.S. 376
66 S. Ct. 203
90 L. Ed. 145
1945 U.S. LEXIS 2646
Argued: Oct 12, 1945

May Department Stores Co., Doing Business As Famous-barr Co., v. National Labor Relations Board

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The case of May Department Stores Co., doing business as Famous-Barr Co., v. National Labor Relations Board in 1945 revolved around the issue of labor rights and union representation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), upholding its decision that May Department Stores had violated the Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act, by refusing to bargain with a duly elected representative from their employees' chosen union. The company argued that it should not have to negotiate with this particular representative because he was an employee who had been discharged for cause - specifically for engaging in activities against his employer's interest while on company time. However, the court found no merit in this argument and affirmed NLRB's ruling that such conduct did not disqualify him from acting as a bargaining agent under federal law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold an order by the NLRB requiring a company to cease and desist from discouraging membership in any labor organization was not justified under existing law. He contended that there was no substantial evidence supporting the board's finding of unfair labor practices on part of May Department Stores Co., as required by Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The justice believed that this case involved issues related to employee representation rather than coercion or interference with employees' rights, which are covered under NLRA provisions. Therefore, he felt it inappropriate for such matters to be decided through litigation before courts instead of negotiation between employers and employees or their representatives.

Opinion written by Justice SFReed
Decided: Dec 10, 1945
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms