International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield

PETITIONER: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283
RESPONDENT: Scofield
LOCATION: Juvenile Court

DOCKET NO.: 18
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 382 US 205 (1965)
ARGUED: Oct 20, 1965
DECIDED: Dec 07, 1965

Facts of the case

Question

Media for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 20, 1965 in International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 283 v. Scofield

Earl Warren:

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, versus Russell Scofield et al.

And Number 53, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America versus The Fafnir Bearing Company et al.

Mr. Rauh.

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.:

May it please the Court.

This is a consolidated argument of Case Number 18, Scofield, and Case Number 53, Fafnir.

18 at Scofield, raises the question whether a Union which is charged with unfair labor practices before the Labor Board and wins its case before the Labor Board and has that charged dismissed can intervene in the Court of Appeals when those who had charged it and seek to have it held in violation of the Labor Act go to the Court of Appeals.

This of course would be the same if the management were on the other side, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused us intervention in that respondent case.

53 Fafnir differs only that the UAW was the charging party, not the respondent before the Board as in Scofield.

Fafnir thus raises the question whether when the Union charges management with an unfair labor practice and wins before the Board, and management then goes to the Court of Appeals, whether we can intervene in those circumstances and of course it would be the same if it was reversed.

Here, the Second Circuit also denied us intervention.

Now the Government's position is a strange one.

They say we're right in Number 18, where we were the respondent before the Board but we are wrong in Number 53 where we were the charging party before the Board.

We, of course, agree on Scofield, we disagree on Fafnir and we say that the government's own reasoning shows that the result should be the same.

I'd like to do Scofield only briefly because it's not in dispute, but I do want to state it and then go on to Fafnir.

Facts of Scofield are these; a number of Union members employed at the Wisconsin Motor Corporation filed a charged against our Union under 8(b)(1)(A) saying that fines we had imposed on membership for exceeding production and pay ceilings violated the Labor Act.

A complaint was issued against us, a hearing was held on which we were the party defendant, we won the case.

The Board dismissed the complaint completely.

The employees went to the Seventh Circuit asking that the Seventh Circuit adjudge us in violation of the Labor Act.

We asked to when --

William O. Douglas:

Was -- they sought to review that precise order?

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.:

Yes sir, the precise order is --

William O. Douglas:

It was -- it wasn't on any collateral phase?

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.:

No sir, they wanted an order saying in so finding.

They asked the Court to find that we had violated the Labor Act and to order us to cease and desist doing so.

We were asked for intervention, we were denied, we asked for a rehearing, we were denied and that brought the -- in this Court granted certiorari.

Now, this seems to me a simple case and as I say, the Board and the Solicitor General support intervention.

In simplest terms, Scofield case involves a question with the silence of Congress on our right of intervention because there's no reference to it in the Act, should be interpreted in one way or another.

And the Government agrees with us that this Court under its supervisory power over the lower court should allow us to intervene in this Scofield situation.

Namely, where we are the respondent before the Board where an order would issue against us if the Court of Appeals reverse the Board.

This seem --