Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom

PETITIONER: Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union
RESPONDENT: Leedom
LOCATION: Union Station

DOCKET NO.: 21
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 358 US 99 (1958)
ARGUED: Nov 10, 1958
DECIDED: Nov 24, 1958

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 10, 1958 in Hotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Leedom

Earl Warren:

Number 21, Hotel Employees Local Number 255, Hotel Restaurant Employees et al., Petitioners, versus Boyd Leedom.

Mr. Brown, you may proceed.

J. W. Brown:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

This case involves the right of the National Labor Relations Board to exclude the entire hotel industry from the operation of the Act.

You have heard in the earlier cases some detail of how the case originally arose.

Frustrated and somewhat, bewildered in Miami, the union ultimately turned to the National Labor Relations Board to obtain the election, which it was singularly unsuccessful in getting in Miami.

Although one must say, we certainly tried.

The Board -- the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board dismissed our petition for certification without hearing and without investigation.

He did so on the ground, as he stated, that the National Labor Relations Board had a long standing policy not to take jurisdiction in the hotel industry as such.

You have heard some of the details of the Miami case that gave rise to our subsequently filing an unfair labor practice charge against the hotels that were involved and it might illuminate a question asked earlier to say that we did allege dismissals of strikers and employees for union activity and we did allege in these charges blacklisting.

These --

Earl Warren:

When was the relation to these cases that we have just heard, that the Board hold that they had no jurisdiction?

Was it before or after --

J. W. Brown:

We -- we --

Earl Warren:

-- after they started?

J. W. Brown:

It was shortly after the case has started.

They were still somewhat in the temporary injunction stage.

Earl Warren:

The first -- is that the first time the -- they had ever ruled on -- on that definitively?

J. W. Brown:

In -- in our case, no.

The -- the Board has so ruled in the St. Louis Hotel Association case to the same effect.

Earl Warren:

What year was that?

J. W. Brown:

That was 1952.

We filed these petitions in 1955.

Earl Warren:

I understood counsel in the other case to say that this union had consistently refused to admit the -- that the Board had jurisdiction.

J. W. Brown:

It is true that this union has on occasion.

It has been on both sides of the fence.

Its consistency has been in its inconsistency.

At times, the -- the union has complained that the ad hoc treatment given it by the Board was not satisfactory.It took some cases and did not take some cases.

And then in 1952, in the St. Louis Hotel Association case, this union asked the Board not to -- and to exercise a discretionary authority and not take jurisdiction.

And as a matter of fact, I argued that case myself and I am arguing today in exactly a contrary thing from bitter experience, the most bitter appeal of which was Miami, Florida where we were so completely frustrated that only the Board's relief was the -- the only thing we could think of other than a long history in court, what you can see we've had.