Petitioner
Durkee Famous Foods Division of the Glidden Company
Respondent
Zdanok, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the original ruling against Durkee was improperly constituted because aU.S. Court of Claims judge, rather than a Circuit Court judge, had sat on thecourt when it heard the case.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chester Bordeau
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Morris Shapiro
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall HarlanII (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1962
Decision
That the U.S. Court of Claims judge had been entitled to sit on the circuit court case; the Court refused to consider any other aspect of the case, letting stand the circuit court judgment that workers from a closed-down plant didindeed have seniority rights at the next new plant that the company opened.
Significance
The circuit court case established that workers have seniority rights at other plants in addition to the one where they originally worked. The Supreme Court decision established that U.S. Court of Claims judges were entitled to siton the circuit court.
Glidden Company v. Zdanok, et al. is one of those cases in which the procedures of the courts are just as important as the actual subject of the case. The history of the Glidden case began in 1957 when the Durkee Famous Foods Division of the Glidden Company closed a plant in Elmhurst, Queens (one of the five boroughs of New York City). Soon after, Durkee opened a new plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The Durkee plant in Elmhurst had been unionized, and workers there had established seniority rights. Seniority means that decisions about who to lay off are based not on the preference of the manager, but on the length of time someone had been working at the plant. The workers who have been at the plant thelongest are the last to be laid off and the first to be rehired.
Management Rights vs. Seniority
The workers at the Durkee plant claimed that their seniority rights applied to the new plant that Durkee opened when they closed the one in Elmhurst. Fromthe management's point of view, this was an infringement of their rights, forcing them to hire workers and then to give them seniority rights at the newcompany. (Seniority rights often apply to other issues besides layoffs, suchas choice of vacation dates, choice of shifts, right to have holidays off, etc . . . )
Workers and managers from the Durkee Food Division fought about this issue inthe Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. That court eventually ruledthat the workers did indeed have seniority rights at Durkee's new factory inBethlehem. However, there was something unusual about the second circuit court at the time. On the bench sat Judge Joseph W. Madden, who was not actuallya federal circuit court judge but one from the U.S. Court of Claims.
Ruling on the Judge
The Durkee company's parent corporation, Glidden Company, objected to the fact that Judge Madden had sat in on the case. They claimed that his participation made the circuit court's ruling invalid, and they asked the Supreme Courtto consider their case on that basis.
The Court did agree to hear the case, but only the part that concerned JudgeMadden. From the outset, they refused to rule on the seniority issue. If theyfound that Judge Madden should not have been involved, the case would go back for another hearing to the circuit court. If they found that Judge Madden'sparticipation had been constitutional, the circuit court decision would stand.
Article I and Article III
The Glidden Company's objection to Judge Madden's participation was based onthe distinction the Constitution makes between the judicial and the legislative branches of government. The judicial branch--the Supreme Court plus the federal court system--is established in Article III of the Constitution. The legislative branch--Congress--is established in Article I.
Federal judges are appointed by the president and subject to the approval ofthe Senate. Under these circumstances, however, there is the question of whatguarantees the independence of the judiciary. If judges are constantly worried about being fired, they may be more concerned about pleasing their employers than about rendering justice. Likewise, if judges are worried about theirsalaries, their decisions may be based on the wish to please rather than on their best understanding of the law.
Therefore, Article III of the U.S. Constitution builds in two important protections for federal judges:
The U.S. Court of Claims is a very different type of court, and its judges work under a different system. The Court of Claims was set up in 1855 to relieve Congress from having to hear about private citizens' claims on the federalgovernment. For example, if a widow of a veteran thought she should receive the veteran's pension, she might bring a claim against the federal government.In 1854, Congress would have had to consider that claim. In 1855, the Courtof Claims could render a decision.
Congress is established by Article I of the Constitution. For that reason, the Court of Claims is considered an "Article I" court, while the Supreme Courtand the federal circuit court system are considered "Article III" courts.
The Glidden Company argued that Judge Madden did not have constitutional Article III protections. Therefore, the possibility existed that he might not render as impartial a decision as an Article III judge. Theoretically, he couldbe threatened with the loss of his job or a cut in his pay.
In their suit, the Glidden Company never suggested that Judge Madden had notdone a good job. Rather, they said that they had the right to an Article IIIjudge. Because they had not gotten one, they considered their case invalid.
What Protection Does a Judge Need?
As a matter of fact, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing that Article I judges have their jobs for life. Therefore, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that Judge Madden's participation on the circuit court was perfectly acceptable. The Court cited the high regard in which they held the court of claims,as well as the fact that claims court judges' jobs are protected.
Justice Douglas and Black dissented. In their opinion, Article III and Article I courts should never be confused. True, Article I judges held their jobs for life, but this was only because Congress had passed a bill saying so. There was nothing stopping Congress from repealing this legislation if it chose.Moreover, the dissenters said, Article I judges did not have protection for their salaries. Only a constitutional amendment, guaranteeing both their jobsand their salaries, would make them as independent as Article III judges, andwould therefore empower them to hear cases in federal circuit court.
The dissenters also suggested that Article I judges had different qualifications from Article III judges. As Justice Douglas wrote in his decision, "Men [sic] of highest quality chosen as Article I judges might never pass muster for Article III courts when tested by their record of tolerance for minoritiesand for their respect of the Bill of Rights . . . "
Despite these arguments, a majority of the Court chose to affirm Judge Madden's participation on the circuit court. Thus, the Glidden decision hadtwo important results: it established workers' seniority rights in more thanone plant operated by their companies, and it affirmed the right of Article Ijudges to make circuit court decisions.
Related Cases
Durkee Famous Foods Division of the Glidden Company
Respondent
Zdanok, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the original ruling against Durkee was improperly constituted because aU.S. Court of Claims judge, rather than a Circuit Court judge, had sat on thecourt when it heard the case.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Chester Bordeau
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Morris Shapiro
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, Arthur Goldberg, John Marshall HarlanII (writing for the Court), Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1962
Decision
That the U.S. Court of Claims judge had been entitled to sit on the circuit court case; the Court refused to consider any other aspect of the case, letting stand the circuit court judgment that workers from a closed-down plant didindeed have seniority rights at the next new plant that the company opened.
Significance
The circuit court case established that workers have seniority rights at other plants in addition to the one where they originally worked. The Supreme Court decision established that U.S. Court of Claims judges were entitled to siton the circuit court.
Glidden Company v. Zdanok, et al. is one of those cases in which the procedures of the courts are just as important as the actual subject of the case. The history of the Glidden case began in 1957 when the Durkee Famous Foods Division of the Glidden Company closed a plant in Elmhurst, Queens (one of the five boroughs of New York City). Soon after, Durkee opened a new plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The Durkee plant in Elmhurst had been unionized, and workers there had established seniority rights. Seniority means that decisions about who to lay off are based not on the preference of the manager, but on the length of time someone had been working at the plant. The workers who have been at the plant thelongest are the last to be laid off and the first to be rehired.
Management Rights vs. Seniority
The workers at the Durkee plant claimed that their seniority rights applied to the new plant that Durkee opened when they closed the one in Elmhurst. Fromthe management's point of view, this was an infringement of their rights, forcing them to hire workers and then to give them seniority rights at the newcompany. (Seniority rights often apply to other issues besides layoffs, suchas choice of vacation dates, choice of shifts, right to have holidays off, etc . . . )
Workers and managers from the Durkee Food Division fought about this issue inthe Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. That court eventually ruledthat the workers did indeed have seniority rights at Durkee's new factory inBethlehem. However, there was something unusual about the second circuit court at the time. On the bench sat Judge Joseph W. Madden, who was not actuallya federal circuit court judge but one from the U.S. Court of Claims.
Ruling on the Judge
The Durkee company's parent corporation, Glidden Company, objected to the fact that Judge Madden had sat in on the case. They claimed that his participation made the circuit court's ruling invalid, and they asked the Supreme Courtto consider their case on that basis.
The Court did agree to hear the case, but only the part that concerned JudgeMadden. From the outset, they refused to rule on the seniority issue. If theyfound that Judge Madden should not have been involved, the case would go back for another hearing to the circuit court. If they found that Judge Madden'sparticipation had been constitutional, the circuit court decision would stand.
Article I and Article III
The Glidden Company's objection to Judge Madden's participation was based onthe distinction the Constitution makes between the judicial and the legislative branches of government. The judicial branch--the Supreme Court plus the federal court system--is established in Article III of the Constitution. The legislative branch--Congress--is established in Article I.
Federal judges are appointed by the president and subject to the approval ofthe Senate. Under these circumstances, however, there is the question of whatguarantees the independence of the judiciary. If judges are constantly worried about being fired, they may be more concerned about pleasing their employers than about rendering justice. Likewise, if judges are worried about theirsalaries, their decisions may be based on the wish to please rather than on their best understanding of the law.
Therefore, Article III of the U.S. Constitution builds in two important protections for federal judges:
The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.In other words, unless a judge is guilty of "bad behavior"--judicial misconduct such as taking bribes or showing bias--that judge's job is guaranteed for life. Also, as long as that judge stays in office, his or her salary cannot be reduced. No disgruntled president or senator can threaten a federal judge with being fired or even with getting a cut in pay.
The U.S. Court of Claims is a very different type of court, and its judges work under a different system. The Court of Claims was set up in 1855 to relieve Congress from having to hear about private citizens' claims on the federalgovernment. For example, if a widow of a veteran thought she should receive the veteran's pension, she might bring a claim against the federal government.In 1854, Congress would have had to consider that claim. In 1855, the Courtof Claims could render a decision.
Congress is established by Article I of the Constitution. For that reason, the Court of Claims is considered an "Article I" court, while the Supreme Courtand the federal circuit court system are considered "Article III" courts.
The Glidden Company argued that Judge Madden did not have constitutional Article III protections. Therefore, the possibility existed that he might not render as impartial a decision as an Article III judge. Theoretically, he couldbe threatened with the loss of his job or a cut in his pay.
In their suit, the Glidden Company never suggested that Judge Madden had notdone a good job. Rather, they said that they had the right to an Article IIIjudge. Because they had not gotten one, they considered their case invalid.
What Protection Does a Judge Need?
As a matter of fact, Congress has passed laws guaranteeing that Article I judges have their jobs for life. Therefore, a majority of the Supreme Court ruled that Judge Madden's participation on the circuit court was perfectly acceptable. The Court cited the high regard in which they held the court of claims,as well as the fact that claims court judges' jobs are protected.
Justice Douglas and Black dissented. In their opinion, Article III and Article I courts should never be confused. True, Article I judges held their jobs for life, but this was only because Congress had passed a bill saying so. There was nothing stopping Congress from repealing this legislation if it chose.Moreover, the dissenters said, Article I judges did not have protection for their salaries. Only a constitutional amendment, guaranteeing both their jobsand their salaries, would make them as independent as Article III judges, andwould therefore empower them to hear cases in federal circuit court.
The dissenters also suggested that Article I judges had different qualifications from Article III judges. As Justice Douglas wrote in his decision, "Men [sic] of highest quality chosen as Article I judges might never pass muster for Article III courts when tested by their record of tolerance for minoritiesand for their respect of the Bill of Rights . . . "
Despite these arguments, a majority of the Court chose to affirm Judge Madden's participation on the circuit court. Thus, the Glidden decision hadtwo important results: it established workers' seniority rights in more thanone plant operated by their companies, and it affirmed the right of Article Ijudges to make circuit court decisions.
Related Cases
- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).
- Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946).
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1987).
- Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
Further Readings
- "Agency Shop Ban Is Left Standing." New York Times, October 10, 1961, p. 85.
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- "High Court Bars Review of Case on Job Seniority."New York Times,October 9, 1962, p. 30.
User Comments Add a comment…