LOCATION: NAACP Alabama State Conference
DOCKET NO.: 17
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
CITATION: 375 US 335 (1964)
ARGUED: Oct 16, 1963
DECIDED: Jan 06, 1964
Facts of the case
Media for Humphrey v. Moore
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 16, 1963 in Humphrey v. Moore
17 and 18, Walter Humphrey, et cetera, et al., Petitioners, versus C. W. Moore, et al.
And Number 18, General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union No 89, versus C. W. Moore et al.
Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
These cases are here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the State of Kentucky to review a judgment and an order of that Court which judgment and order set aside a seniority determination made under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In case 17, the petitioners are a group of employees who are adversely affected by the decision of the Court of Appeals.
They are represented here by Mr. Ratner whose argument will follow mine.
Case Number 18 is the petition of the Local Union itself.
And I will -- to set the issue clearly before the Court attempt to expound the facts upon which the decision below was based or should have been based upon which was we think is controlling here.
The basic question presented of course is whether or not a state court or a federal court may set aside an interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement rendered by a Committee authorized to make such interpretation under the agreement because the Court is of the opinion that interpretation was erroneous or contrary to natural justice.
There are five parties actually or groups of parties involved in this case.
The petitioner in Number 18, as I stated is a labor union, Local 89 representing many employees in the Louisville, Kentucky area.
The Dealers Transport Company which was a party below, in the Tennessee Corporation which delivers automobiles and trucks and interstate commerce and it has a terminal in Louisville, Kentucky where the fourth company has an assembly plant.
The E & L Transport Company similarly is a trucking company and interstate commerce delivering automobiles and trucks out of the four assembly plant in Louisville.
This company was not a respondent below.
The respondents Moore as a class are a group of employees of Dealers Transport Company employed by Dealers Transport Company in its operation of trucking away automobiles and trucks.
And this group is a mem -- are -- all of members of this group are members of Local 89.
The petitioners Humphrey are a class of employees of E & L Transport Company, the competitor to Dealers and are similarly members of Local 89 and represented by Local 89 for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Dealers and E & L, the trucking employers in this case are members of a multi-employer, multi-union bargaining unit and have been for many years.
These employers give their power of attorney to an employer's group known as Automobile Transporters Labor Division.
This power of attorney authorizes that Committee to negotiate and sign an agreement on behalf of the various employers who are members of that association.
Arthur J. Goldberg:
It is a recognized unit.
I -- I would like to leave the Court to call the Court's attention to a case which just called on my attention last night.
I think probably counsel was negligent for not finding it earlier but it's a non-reported case.
It's the NLRB Case Number 25-RC-1925 in which this same contract was before the National Labor Relations Board in litigation arising out of a claim by the Mine Workers Union that it represented a majority of employees of a single employer who is party to this contract.
The board held that the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining as evidenced by this contract was a multi-employer unit and dismissed the petition of the mine workers for a single employer election.
What's the date of that?
This -- the decision was in February 19 -- February 23rd, 1961.
It is entitled USAC Transport Inc. and District 50, United Mine Workers of America.