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

National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Co.

• 1963 • 375 U.S. 405 • Warren Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Co., 1963, revolved around the issue of whether an employer's refusal to bargain with a union over insurance benefits for retired employees violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The company argued that retirees were not "employees" under NLRA and thus they had no obligation to negotiate about their benefits. However, the court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating that while...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 Warren Court
Term: 1963
Docket: 26
375 U.S. 405
84 S. Ct. 457
11 L. Ed. 2d 435
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2263
Argued: Dec 11, 1963

National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Co.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Co., 1963, revolved around the issue of whether an employer's refusal to bargain with a union over insurance benefits for retired employees violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The company argued that retirees were not "employees" under NLRA and thus they had no obligation to negotiate about their benefits. However, the court ruled in favor of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating that while retirees are not considered "employees", issues related to retirement can significantly impact current employees' decisions regarding collective bargaining and labor peace. Therefore, it was held that employers must bargain with unions on matters concerning retiree insurance benefits as these directly relate to terms and conditions of employment.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Co., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a cease and desist order against Exchange Parts Co. was an overreach of power by both the court and NLRB. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Exchange had engaged in unfair labor practices, as alleged by NLRB, particularly regarding coercion or interference with employees' rights under Section 7 of NLRA. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof of misconduct. Harlan also expressed concern about potential infringement upon employers' free speech rights when discussing unionization with their employees if such conversations could be construed as coercive or interfering without clear proof.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(2)
Decided: Jan 13, 1964
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