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. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp.

• 1981 • 454 U.S. 170 • Burger Court
In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation (REMC). The dispute arose when REMC fired an employee for distributing union literature during non-working hours without prior permission. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued that this was a violation of labor laws protecting employees' rights to engage in union activities. However,...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 Burger Court
Term: 1981
Docket: 80-885
454 U.S. 170
102 S. Ct. 216
70 L. Ed. 2d 323
1981 U.S. LEXIS 146
Argued: Oct 05, 1981

National Labor Relations Board v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corporation (REMC). The dispute arose when REMC fired an employee for distributing union literature during non-working hours without prior permission. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) argued that this was a violation of labor laws protecting employees' rights to engage in union activities. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with NLRB's interpretation and held that it was within REMC’s right as an employer to maintain control over its property by requiring employees to seek permission before engaging in such activities on company premises during non-working hours. This decision clarified employers' rights regarding their ability to regulate union activity on their property outside working hours.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Hendricks County Rural Electric Membership Corp., Justice William Brennan, joined by Justices White and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding unfair labor practices. The dissenters believed that an employer's refusal to bargain with a union over issues related to employee retirement benefits constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). They contended that such benefits were clearly "terms and conditions" of employment as defined in Section 9(a) of NLRA. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on whether pension plans fell within or outside collective bargaining agreements; arguing instead that it should be considered part and parcel of them. In their view, this misinterpretation undermined Congress' intent in enacting NLRA - promoting industrial peace through good-faith collective bargaining.

Opinion written by Justice WJBrennan
Decided: Dec 02, 1981
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