Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones

PETITIONER: Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT: Jones
LOCATION: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DOCKET NO.: 81-1574
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 460 US 669 (1983)
ARGUED: Dec 01, 1982
DECIDED: Apr 04, 1983

ADVOCATES:
Elinor Hadley Stillman - on behalf of NLRB as amicus curiae
Laurence Stephen Gold - on behalf of the Appellants
Robert F. Gore - on behalf of the Appellee

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 01, 1982 in Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 04, 1983 in Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in Local 926 of the Operating Engineers Union against Jones will be announced by Justice White.

Byron R. White:

In this case, the appellant Jones brought suit in a Georgia state court against the appellee union which had a collective bargaining contract with the Georgia Power Company.

The -- Jones alleged that the union had coerced the -- Georgia Power into discharging him from his job as a supervisor and thus has caused the company to breach its contract with him.

The union moved to dismissed claiming that the suit could not go forward because the conduct with which it was charged was an arguable unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

The trial court dismissed the case but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed holding that the suit could go forward because among other things, it thought the conduct was not an arguable unfair practice.

We postponed jurisdiction to the merits and we now hold that the first of the appeal is improper but treating the state -- the statement of jurisdiction as a petition for certiorari, we grant the petition and go on to reverse the judgment of the Georgia court for the reasons that we stated at some length in an opinion on file with the Court.

In our view the conduct that is involved in this suit was an arguable unfair practice and under our existing cases was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.

Justice Rehnquist has filed a dissenting opinion and Justices Powell and O'Connor have joined that opinion.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Justice White.