RESPONDENT: Association for the Benefit of Noncontract Employees
LOCATION: Criminal District Court, Parish of New Orleans
DOCKET NO.: 138
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CITATION: 380 US 650 (1965)
ARGUED: Mar 04, 1965
DECIDED: Apr 28, 1965
Facts of the case
Media for Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Association for the Benefit of Noncontract Employees
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 04, 1965 in Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Association for the Benefit of Noncontract Employees
Number 138, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees versus Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees and Number 139, United Air Lines versus National Mediation Board et al.
Yes, 369, National Mediation Board et al., Petitioners versus Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees.
You're speaking first, are you?
Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Highsaw and I agreed to divide the time and --
Yes, I find it on my --
-- I will --
-- my desk here --
-- take the bulk of the time but try not to run over into his too much and then he will -- so that I may present the views of the government which is interested in these cases.
And he will then present the views of his client, the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks.
-- (Voice Overlap) the way it's been agreed upon.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
These three cases which are here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, raise two quite distinct questions under the Railway Labor Act.
The first concerns the form of a ballot to be used in an election which the Board proposed to conduct among certain of the employees of the United Air Lines.
And the second question concerns the alleged or claimed right of a carrier to be heard on the kind of question of representation which arose in this case.
I shall consider the two questions quite separately because they're analytically distinct in the order in which I have stated.
I think it would also be convenient that instead of simply stating the facts in the normal manner, I were to explain the relevant provisions of the Railway Labor Act as I go along and the state of facts because it is quite different from the National Labor Relations Act which we normally think of in this kind of case.
The provisions of the Railway Labor Act that are relevant are set out beginning on page 3 of our brief.
On page 4, Section 2 Second provides that all disputes between a carrier and its -- or carriers, its or their employees shall be considered between representatives designated and authorized to confirm respectively by the carrier or carriers and by the employees.
Section 2 Fourth over on the opposite page, provides that the majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representatives of the craft or class for the purposes of the checker.
And then Section 2 Sixth provides that when any dispute arises between a carrier and its employees, it shall be the duty of the designated representative or representatives of such carrier and of such employees, referring again to the representatives of the employees, to confer and respect of such dispute.
You'll note that throughout the statute, it speaks in terms of making a designation and almost seems to assume that there will be a designation.