RESPONDENT: Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
LOCATION: Tax Comission of Mississippi
DOCKET NO.: 73-1313
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
CITATION: 419 US 428 (1975)
ARGUED: Nov 19, 1974
DECIDED: Jan 14, 1975
Matthew E. Murray - for petitioner
Norton J. Come - for respondent NLRB in support of petitioner
Robert E. Fitzgerald, Jr. - for respondent Local 134, IBEW
Facts of the case
Media for International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIOAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 19, 1974 in International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 14, 1975 in International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation v. Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO
William H. Rehnquist:
In ITT versus Local 134.
It was a Labor Relations case coming out of the Seventh Circuit.
ITT charged that the union had engaged in a jurisdictional strike prohibited by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the National Labor Relations Act.
By striking an order to force and employer to assign its particular work rather than give the work to another union.
Pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act, the Board determined that another union was entitled to the work.
And only after respondent refused to comply that determination did the Board charge respondent with an unfair labor practice.
At the unfair labor practice proceeding, the Board found that the union had committed an unfair labor practice.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit however declined to enforce the Board's order on the grounds that participation by a Board attorney in both the 10 (k) and the 8 (b) (4) (D) proceedings violated Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Circuits on this point.
The APA section at issue applies only in cases of adjudication as that term is defined by the Act.
The Board's Section 10 (k) proceeding however is not such an adjudication since it is neither itself a final disposition of any issue nor is it agency process for the formulation of an order as that term is defined in the Act.
Standing alone, the Section 10 (k) determination is not binding on the union nor does it order a union to do anything.
The focus in the later unfair labor practice proceeding is materially different in the proceedings are separate.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you Mr. Justice Rehnquist.