et al. Glidden Company v. Zdanok - Significance, Management Rights Vs. Seniority, Ruling On The Judge, Article I And Article Iii

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 a U.S. Court of Claims judge, rather than a Circuit Court judge, had sat on the court 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 Harlan II (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 did indeed have seniority rights at the next new plant that the company opened.

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.