Lechmere Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board/Dissent Stevens

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Lechmere Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board by John Paul Stevens
Dissenting Opinion
Court Documents
Case Syllabus
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinions
White
Stevens


Justice STEVENS, dissenting.

For the first two reasons stated in Justice WHITE'S opinion, ante, at 541-545, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals enforcing the Board's order. I agree with Justice WHITE that the Court's strict construction of NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956), is not consistent with Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976), and our other cases interpreting Babcock. I do not, however, join his opinion to the extent that it suggests that the Babcock case was incorrectly decided, ante, at 545-548. That decision rejected the Board's view that the rules applicable to union organizing draw no distinction between employees and nonemployees. I believe that central holding in Babcock was correct and is not inconsistent with the current law of deference to administrative agencies. Accordingly, I also respectfully dissent.

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).