Facts of the Case
These cases arise from the refusal of respondents, publishers of four Los Angeles daily newspapers, to bargain collectively with a union representing newsboys who distribute their papers on the streets of that city. Respondents' contention that they were not required to bargain because the newsboys are not their "employees" within the meaning of that term in the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 450, 29 U.S.C. § 152, [ Footnote 1 ] presents the important question which we granted certiorari [ Footnote 2 ] to resolve. The proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board were begun with the filing of four petitions for investigation and certification [ Footnote 3 ] by Los Angeles Newsboys Local Industrial Union No. 75. Hearings were held in a consolidated proceeding, [ Footnote 4 ] after which the Board made findings of fact and concluded that the regular full-time newsboys selling each paper were employees within the Act and that questions affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees had arisen. It designated appropriate units and ordered elections. 28 N.L.R.B. 1006. [ Footnote 5 ] At these, the union was selected as their representative by majorities of the eligible newsboys. After the union was appropriately certified. 33 N.L.R.B. 941, 36 N.L.R.B. 285, the respondents refused to bargain with it. Thereupon, proceedings under Section 10, 49 Stat. 453-455, 29 U.S.C. § 160, were instituted, a hearing [ Footnote 6 ] was held, and respondents were found to have violated Section 8(1) and (5) of the Act, 49 Stat. 452, 453, 29 U.S.C. § 158(1), (5). They were ordered to cease and desist from such violations and to bargain collectively with the union upon request. 39 N.L.R.B. 1245, 1256.
Conclusions
-
1. The meaning of the term "employee" in the National Labor Relations Act is to be determined not exclusively by reference to common law standards, local law, or legal classifications made for other purposes, but with regard also to the history, context and purposes of the Act and to the economic facts of the particular relationship. Pp. 322 U. S. 120 , 322 U. S. 129 .
The Labor Law Enigma: Article III, Judicial Power, and the National Labor Relations Board
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
Axon Enterprises v. FTC[1] wasn’t supposed to be about labor law. In fact, it wasn’t...