Local 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden

PETITIONER: Local 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices
RESPONDENT: Borden
LOCATION: Beaumont Mills

DOCKET NO.: 541
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 373 US 690 (1963)
ARGUED: Apr 24, 1963
DECIDED: Jun 03, 1963

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Local 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 24, 1963 in Local 100, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden

Earl Warren:

Number 541, Local 100 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, Petitioner, versus H. N. Borden.

Mr. Wells.

L. N. D. Wells, Jr.:

Mr. Chief Justice and if the Court please.

Texas Courts have awarded actual and punitive damages to a union member named Borden.

For as the Texas Court says, “Refusal to refer him to a job offered him in the construction of the Republic Bank Building in Dallas”, we're here on certiorari challenging the Texas State jurisdiction and asserting that the conduct refusal to refer is subject to the exclusive federal regulation.

We're quite close to the case which precedes this, except we don't have the supervisory problem in this case.

Briefly, the facts, Borden was a member of the Plumber's Union who lived in Shreveport.

Construction workers are ambulatory, he's all over every place, building.

He worked for Farwell Construction Company down in Galveston and on a big hospital.

This job was about to conclude and he learned down there in Galveston that this large job was coming in Dallas.

He quit in Galveston and went home to Shreveport and as he said went fishing for two to three months.

And then in September, came over to Dallas, as he said to go to work on the Republic Bank job, which was the biggest job in Dallas at that time.

He said that it was a good job and I like to work on big work.

It was a big job and I wanted it.

So he went to the supervisor for Farwell who was the mechanical contractor on the Republic Bank, and was told that he would be employed if he obtained a union referral.

He then came back to the Dallas local union hall.

He had not obtained a clearance card from his Shreveport local, but he did have his international union due book with him.

He went to the Dallas local and told the business agent, Lanham, “I'm here to go to work on the Republic Bank Building.”

As Borden testified, Lanham “blow his top” and said, “You're not going to work on that bank building.

You've come in here wrong.

You've come in here with a job in your pocket.”

Now, if I may digress briefly here, there was a contract in effect in Dallas between this local union and the Mechanical Contractors Association.

Farwell was a member of that Association.

It is an abbreviated contract.

It's in the record.

It provides wage rates and grievance procedures.

It does not, in so many words, provide for a hiring hall, but it is undisputed in this record that it is the custom in Dallas for all the mechanical contractors and certainly -- well, perhaps I'm overstating the record.

It is the -- it is clear that Farwell hired only through the union hiring hall as a matter of custom.

Now, when Lanham, the business agent, tells Borden, the man coming in from Shreveport, “You've come in here wrong; you've come in with the job in your pocket.

I'm not going to refer you.”