Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: Grace-New Haven Community Hospital

DOCKET NO.: 64
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 365 US 667 (1961)
ARGUED: Feb 28, 1961
DECIDED: Apr 17, 1961

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 28, 1961 (Part 1) in Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 28, 1961 (Part 2) in Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

Herbert S. Thatcher:

Just before the recess, we were discussing the reasons why the unions object to the Boards attempting to condition their union rapport.

I think -- I don't think I have pointed out in this case as yet, however that here, the Board assumes in illegal agreement of some sort before it even attempts to impose a condition, it attempts to impose a condition only as a means of achieving -- of eliminating what it thinks is illegal about the agreement.

So under the Board's own rationale if as I've indicated, the agreement is -- and must be considered legal on its face because not discriminatory on its face or an implication, then the Board's right even to impose conditions is lost.

Now, obviously, if the agreement were legal without these conditions, the Board would have no right to impose these three conditions because it would be a direct intrusion on the collective bargaining process which this Court in the Oliver case and in American National Insurance and the many other cases that says, "It's not the Board's function."

It is commerce's function to impose conditions like that if it thinks the hiring hall in some way should be tampered with or if it thinks the unions and the employers should not have a right to make their own agreements.

That's for Congress to -- to do, not for this Board.

And so, on any other postulate but -- that the agreement itself on its face is illegal, the Board would have no power to impose these conditions, I think that's clear.

Now, turning to the specific conditions once more --

Hugo L. Black:

How are they promulgated?

Herbert S. Thatcher:

Just by an edict to Mountain Pacific, we -- we hereby state that you can't have a union referral agreement which we find on its face to be illegal which -- which in all such agreements, we -- we conclude are illegal because they encourage membership unless, you put in one, two, three.

Hugo L. Black:

Did the action rest on -- or purport to rest on any specific provision of the act of the law itself --

Herbert S. Thatcher:

None --

Hugo L. Black:

-- authorizing the Board --

Herbert S. Thatcher:

None, Your Honor the Board --

Hugo L. Black:

-- promulgates the rules or --

Herbert S. Thatcher:

No promulgates the rules --

Hugo L. Black:

-- regulations.

Herbert S. Thatcher:

-- no provision of the law, no legislative history, merely something which the Board in its expertise deemed -- this Board at least deemed was necessary in order to have a proper union referral agreement under the Taft-Hartley Act.

All previous force just as expertise did not have this dealing but this Court has imposed these three conditions.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Any division in the Board in Mountain Pacific?

Herbert S. Thatcher:

There was when -- when Senator Murdock was on the Board, he dissented the Mountain Pacific.

The present Board, there is no -- no dissent.

Now, on the three conditions, the unions object very strongly to being required to expressly include the provisions which says that they aren't going to discriminate because that adds a -- a contractual obligation not to discriminate, in addition to the statutory obligation not to discriminate.

Thus giving -- thus, if there is a violation giving two remedies, thus the remedy of a contract violation being available in whatever form someone might be able get into.

And if there is any discriminate, we'd rather have the Board and look rather than some course.

We think this is a matter primarily to the Board to worry about --

Hugo L. Black:

Is there are any other -- pardon me but is there any other N.L.R.B. case besides the one you were -- in which you refer Mountain Pacific chapter that --

Herbert S. Thatcher:

Well, there's dozens of them.

Hugo L. Black:

-- discuss it because I'm not talking about the (Voice Overlap) --

Herbert S. Thatcher:

Mount Pacific is the only --