Jump to content

Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Company
Argued December 9–10, 1964
Decided March 29, 1965
Full case nameTextile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Company, et al.
Citations380 U.S. 263 (more)
85 S. Ct. 994; 13 L. Ed. 2d 827
Case history
PriorDarlington Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 682 (4th Cir. 1963); cert. granted, 377 U.S. 903 (1964).
Holding
"It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to antiunion animus."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinion
MajorityHarlan, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, White
Stewart and Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Company, 380 U.S. 263 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held:

1. It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to anti-union animus. Pp. 380 U. S. 269-274.[1]

2. Closing part of a business is an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) of the Act if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer's remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect. Pp. 380 U. S. 274-275.

3. If those exercising control over a plant that is being closed for anti-union reasons have an interest in another business, whether or not affiliated with or in the same line of commerce as the closed plant, of sufficient substantiality to promise a benefit from nonunionization of that business, act to close their plant for that purpose, and have a relationship to the other business which makes it probable that its employees will fear closing down if organizational activities are continued, an unfair labor practice has been made out. Pp. 380 U. S. 275-276.

4. Since no findings were made by the Board as to the purpose and effect of the Darlington closing with respect to the employees of the other plants in the Deering Milliken group, the judgments are vacated and the cases remanded to permit such findings to be made. Pp. 380 U. S. 276-277.

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Associate Justice John M. Harlan II authored the opinion of the Court.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
[edit]