Supreme Court Rules in NLRB v. Fansteel That Sit-Down Strikers Can Be Lawfully Fired Despite Employer Violations

On February 27, 1939, the Supreme Court rules 6-2 in NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation that workers who engage in sit-down strikes—occupying employer property—lose the protections of the National Labor Relations Act and can be lawfully discharged even when the employer has committed unfair labor practices. The decision deals a significant blow to the labor movement by declaring illegal the most effective organizing tactic of the 1930s, the occupation strikes that had won recognition from General Motors, Goodyear, and other major corporations.

The Fansteel case arises from a February 1937 sit-down strike at an Illinois metallurgical plant. Workers occupied the plant to protest the company’s refusal to bargain with their union—a clear violation of the Wagner Act. The NLRB ruled that while the company had committed unfair labor practices, workers had also engaged in “illegal seizure” of company property. The Board ordered the company to offer reinstatement only to workers who abandoned the occupation, while allowing permanent discharge of those who remained. The Supreme Court affirms, holding that the sit-down strike is “a high-handed proceeding without shadow of legal right” that forfeits worker protections regardless of employer misconduct.

Chief Justice Hughes’s majority opinion acknowledges that the employer violated the Wagner Act by refusing to bargain, but holds that illegal employee conduct—occupying private property—severs the employment relationship and eliminates the right to reinstatement. Justices Black and Reed dissent, arguing the decision allows employers to benefit from their own unfair labor practices by provoking workers into tactics that forfeit their rights. The Fansteel ruling effectively ends the sit-down strike movement that had transformed labor relations in 1936-37, removing from workers’ arsenal the tactic most threatening to corporate control over production. The decision demonstrates how courts can limit the practical effectiveness of labor rights while formally upholding them, establishing precedents for judicial narrowing of worker protections that continues through subsequent decades.