NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 301 U.S. 1 (1937) Facts A case concerning the power of Congress to regulate labor relations. In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act to help workers earn higher wages and better working conditions through the collective bargaining. The law additionally created the National Labor Relations Board to hear complaints of unfair labor practices and impose corrective measures. The act was based on the ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and that labor disputes would disrupt this commerce that Congress had the right to prevent. Jones and Laughlin, one of the nation’s largest steel producers, had business that extended into many states and was involved in every aspect of steel production. Complaints were …show more content…
Holding Yes, 5-4 in favor of NLRB. Chief Justice Hughes wrote the majority opinion. Reasoning 1. The NLRB Act can be construed to operate within constitutional authority. The commerce governed by the act is interstate and foreign commerce in the constitutional sense. The grant of authority to the board does not extend to the relationship between all industrial employers and employees. 2. Employees have as clear of a right to organize for labor right and the prevention and discrimination can safeguard these rights. When industries organize on a national scale Congress can intervene over labor relations. Acts which directly burden or obstruct interstate commerce, or its free flow, are within the reach of the congressional power. 3. The authority to protect interstate commerce is not limited to transactions deemed to be a part of the stream of commerce. This power can be exerted to protect interstate commerce regardless of the dangers that threaten it. The stoppage of the manufacturing operation of the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation would have serious effects upon interstate