Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: Superior Court of Bibb County

DOCKET NO.: 44
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 362 US 411 (1960)
ARGUED: Jan 11, 1960
DECIDED: Apr 25, 1960

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1960 (Part 1) in Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1960 (Part 2) in Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board

Earl Warren:

Mr. Come, you may proceed.

Norton J. Come:

May it please the Court.

As I started to point out at the -- at the recess, the kind of situation that you had here -- well, you had the continuing application in the union security clause going on.

We kept the dispute, as the court below pointed out, rankling at least once a month in the mind of the employees, and the record bears this out.

It shows that an error of uncertainty prevailed among the employees as to how the Union got in when they learned of the union security agreement.

Their inquiries met evasive replies and accusations of being troublemakers.

Now, what --

Hugo L. Black:

What are you quoting from now?

Norton J. Come:

I'm quoting from the -- my --

Hugo L. Black:

I just want to read it if it is in the record.

Norton J. Come:

I think that the findings of the Board, as set forth in -- in our brief, bear out -- I'm paraphrasing, Your Honor, “However, the continued application of the contract kept the employees wondering and toward the end of the first year of the contract when it became appropriate to reopen it, the questioning resumed and at this time, the IAM representative explained to a group of the employees that the Union had gotten in because it had the company connected with Bryan over a barrel.”

This is at Record Reference 101.

(Inaudible)

Norton J. Come:

The IAM representative explained to the employees, as late as the summer of 1955, about 10 months after the contract had run when they were continuing to wonder why it is that they -- that the IAM had -- had gotten this contract.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Who passed the barrel?

Well, I --

Norton J. Come:

That the Union had gotten in, this is the IAM representative explaining to the employees because it had a company connected with Bryan, the petitioner here, over a barrel.

In other words, the contract with the Union and Bryan was part of the quid pro quo for settling some other dispute that the Union had with another related employer.

And shortly, thereafter, the charges here were filed.

So you didn't have something that -- that died down right at the outset.

And, we submit, the realities of industrial life are such that, in a matter of this sort, you do not end with the execution of the contract, particularly where, as I pointed out earlier, you have new employees that are being added here throughout the period.

Hugo L. Black:

Who was the witness who testified there?

Norton J. Come:

I believe it was one of the employees, Your Honor.

That's at Record 101, testifying as to what the union organizer, Mr. Schwartzmiller, had told him.

Hugo L. Black:

Is this Local 701 of the CIO?

Norton J. Come:

This is Local 1424 of -- it was -- I didn't get your question.

Was the witness --

Hugo L. Black:

I mean to say --

Norton J. Come:

-- a member of --Did the CIO have -- have a contract any time during its term?

No, Your Honor.