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

Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

• 1944 • 323 U.S. 248 • Stone Court
The Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board case in 1944 revolved around the issue of whether an employer, who had a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union representing its employees, could unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment without first negotiating these changes with the union. The Supreme Court ruled that such unilateral action by an employer was unlawful under Section 8(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. This decision affirmed...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: 1944
Docket: 66
323 U.S. 248
65 S. Ct. 238
89 L. Ed. 216
1944 U.S. LEXIS 1245
Argued: Nov 15, 1944

Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board case in 1944 revolved around the issue of whether an employer, who had a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union representing its employees, could unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment without first negotiating these changes with the union. The Supreme Court ruled that such unilateral action by an employer was unlawful under Section 8(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. This decision affirmed that employers must negotiate in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms or conditions of employment before implementing any changes to existing agreements. The court held that this obligation extends even if there is no explicit provision requiring negotiation about modifications within their contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board argued that the majority's decision to uphold the NLRB's order was incorrect because it failed to properly consider whether or not there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings. The dissent contended that, contrary to what had been determined by both the NLRB and affirmed by Supreme Court, there were no unfair labor practices committed by Wallace Corporation. It further criticized how much weight was given to hearsay evidence during proceedings before reaching a conclusion about alleged violations of employee rights under Section 8(1) and (3) of National Labor Relations Act. In addition, they disagreed with how quickly an enforcement decree was issued without giving due consideration for potential errors made during initial hearings at lower levels which could have affected final rulings on this matter.

Opinion written by Justice HLBlack
Decided: Dec 18, 1944
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