Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

C 
The history and structure of the NLRA make clear that
Congress “entrusted administration of the labor policy for
the  Nation  to  a  centralized  administrative  agency”—the
Board—“armed with its own procedures, and equipped with 
its specialized knowledge and cumulative experience.”  Gar-
mon, 359 U. S., at 242.  Congress thought the Board’s pri-
mary role was “necessary to obtain uniform application of
[the NLRA’s] substantive rules and to avoid th[e] diversi-
ties and conflicts likely to result from a variety of local pro-
cedures and attitudes toward labor controversies.”  Garner, 
346 U. S., at 490.  That judgment makes perfect sense.  The 
NLRA’s substantive principles are intrinsically broad and
potentially conflicting, leaving much for future articulation
through  case-by-case  adjudication.    Drawing  the  line  be-
tween  activities  that  constitute  a  protected  strike,  on  the 
one hand, and unprotected actions for which employers may 
validly discipline employees, on the other, is a legally and 
factually complex task.  Moreover, that task implicates im-
portant  economic  policy  considerations  about  the  relative 
bargaining power of labor and management that affect not 
only the parties to a particular labor dispute but also our
broader national economy. 

To  effect  Congress’s  intent,  this  Court  has  consistently
recognized that “courts are not primary tribunals to adjudi-
cate [these] issues.”  Garmon, 359 U. S., at 244.  Rather, “it 
is to the Board that Congress entrusted the task of applying 
the  Act’s  general  . . .  language  in  the  light  of  the  infinite 
combinations of events which might be charged as violative
of its terms.”  Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U. S. 483, 
500–501  (1978)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    And 
the Board, “if it is to accomplish the task which Congress
set for it, necessarily must have authority . . . to fill the in-
terstices of the broad statutory provisions.”  Id., at 501.  So, 
while  the  Board’s  decision  “is  not  the  last  word”  on  these