Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc. Page 9

Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc. general information

Media for Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 16, 1957 in Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc.

Stanley Denlinger:

And the State of New York came along and considered that they work and argued the cession arrangement with the -- to this Court and this Court found there had been no agreement to cede the question of whether or not it was an appropriate unit to the State Board that Congress intended to leave the practice that the Board had been indulging in from its very beginning to decline certain cases that he had meant merely to give them the empowering, if you please, it does not direct them Your Honors.

Empower the Labor Relations Board to make agreements with those boards that it desired to use to assist them in the caring of their load of cases they would otherwise assume.

Earl Warren:

Is there anything in the language of the Section or in the legislative history to which you can refer us that would (Voice Overlap) --

Stanley Denlinger:

Your Honors, I think not.

I think we can say here that again, Congress has left a lot for you in this Court and us lawyers to guess about.

That is my best guess is the most I can say for it Your Honor.

It has been passed upon however, this very thing by a Circuit Court and a very, very honorable one which we cite on page 62 of our brief where the Ninth Circuit says, “By the expressed language of Section 10 (a), the Board was and still is empowered not directed to prevent persons from engaging in unfair labor practices affecting Congress.

Its discretionary authority in respect to its assertion of jurisdiction was never so far as we are informed questioned under the Act as it existed prior to 1947.

The Board has wide discretion in the issuance of complaints.

It is not required by the statute to move on every charge, it is merely unable to do so.

The Board itself without judicial challenge acted on the assumption that it could or reasons of policy or for budgetary or other reasons decline to issue an unfair labor practice and so forth.”

Now that's a decision since the provision was enacted which we think supports our position but does not answer the question of what Congress had in mind.

What --

Stanley Denlinger:

I --

What was the -- had you finished the --

Stanley Denlinger:

Yes, Your Honor.

What -- what was the facts of what took place here, was it violence or mere -- or a mere trespass?

Stanley Denlinger:

There was no violence Your Honor, it was mere trespass and the --

And that the trespassers consist of employees and also non-employees?

Stanley Denlinger:

There were seven employees that engaged in picketing from time to time.

The main picketing was done by the union which is composed of butchers from many adjoining counties not locally at all.

So that's it Your Honor and this -- this picketing was done --

Well, did this injunction run --

Stanley Denlinger:

-- on it's face between the --

Did the injunction run against only the union and its members?

Stanley Denlinger:

That -- against the union and these two business agents, that's against whom they -- it was.

And the employees were probably members of the union picketing.

Stanley Denlinger:

Well, there was considerable question under the evidence on that Your Honor.

The union was claiming that once a man had signed up in the butchers that he was forever a member of the union whereas some eight or nine of these men who testified in the proceeding stated they were no longer members of the union although the union claimed them from the fact that had one time they had joined.

And they had continued to picket from off the employers' ground?