Case Citation
Legal Case Name

South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1976Docket #732168
48 L. Ed. 2d 382 96 S. Ct. 1842 425 U.S. 800 1976 U.S. LEXIS 151 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2507

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a Court of Appeals, after reversing the NLRB’s finding on “single employer” status, erred by deciding the “appropriate bargaining unit” issue itself instead of remanding to the Board for its initial determination.

Legal Significance: This case underscores the principle of agency deference: courts must remand to an agency for determination of issues within its primary statutory jurisdiction, rather than deciding them de novo, even after correcting an agency error.

South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

A union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that South Prairie Construction Co. (South Prairie) and Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. (Kiewit), both subsidiaries of PKS, constituted a single employer under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that South Prairie was thus bound by Kiewit’s collective bargaining agreement. The NLRB found they were separate employers and dismissed the complaint (p. b871-4). The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding South Prairie and Kiewit were a single employer (p. b872-6). Crucially, the Court of Appeals then proceeded to decide a second issue not definitively passed upon by the Board: that the employees of both companies constituted an appropriate bargaining unit under § 9 of the NLRA (p. b873-4). It then found an unfair labor practice and remanded to the Board for issuance of an order. The companies and the NLRB petitioned for certiorari, primarily arguing the Court of Appeals improperly decided the bargaining unit question.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the Court of Appeals err by deciding the appropriate bargaining unit under § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act in the first instance, after reversing the National Labor Relations Board’s determination on the separate issue of whether two companies constituted a single employer?

Yes. The Court of Appeals invaded the statutory province of the NLRB Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err by deciding the appropriate bargaining unit under § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act in the first instance, after reversing the National Labor Relations Board’s determination on the separate issue of whether two companies constituted a single employer?

Conclusion

This case reinforces the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the limited scope Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad min

Legal Rule

The selection of an appropriate bargaining unit under § 9(b) of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court reasoned that the determination of an appropriate bargaining unit Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum d

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Appellate court erred by deciding appropriate bargaining unit after reversing NLRB
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute ir

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

It's every lawyer's dream to help shape the law, not just react to it.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+