RESPONDENT: District 50, United Mine Workers of America
LOCATION: Philadelphia Board of Public Education
DOCKET NO.: 64
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1957-1958)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CITATION: 355 US 453 (1958)
ARGUED: Jan 06, 1958
DECIDED: Feb 03, 1958
Facts of the case
Media for National Labor Relations Board v. District 50, United Mine Workers of AmericaAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 06, 1958 (Part 1) in National Labor Relations Board v. District 50, United Mine Workers of America
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 06, 1958 (Part 2) in National Labor Relations Board v. District 50, United Mine Workers of America
-- proper, furthermore familiar with the practices of the Board -- for me in response to the suggestion by Mr. Justice Brenan, that the Board has respected an election conducted under a state agency and declined to hold the Board election within a year thereafter, a fundamental fallacy.
William J. Brennan, Jr.:
We can give you that exact case within 24 hours.
I don't have it.
May I -- may I ask you exactly what -- is it that the Board has ordered such a non-board election?
They have respected one that -- was held and it was brought to their attention.
I don't think they ordered such an election, but there is nothing in the law or to prevent them from doing it.
Well, that's -- that's rather important to me.
Would it -- would an order -- will an order requiring or conditioning or would an order finding an unfair labor practice which is not in controversy here, I figured, I mean, before, I figured.
No -- no unfair -- no controversy about an unfair labor practice by the employer.
There is no -- would -- would an order by the Board in order to rectify and correct and prevent the recurrence of the continuing influence affect an unfair labor practice by requesting that some, a state agency make an election, would that be all right?
Well, it's wholly unnecessary.
But I -- and that is the question.
Suppose they did it, like in a -- I often see the Government are doing this that I think are unnecessary.
Well, the -- the answer is found here, Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
Before you ever get to that, their fallacy is in supposing that because District 50 elected not to file the affidavits and the financial reports that the Board cannot conduct an election.
The Board can conduct an election.
District 50 didn't raise this question.
We didn't commit an unfair labor practice.
If we had committed an unfair labor practice as a part of logic, you might say that District 50 raised the question.
No, but the Board found what -- what this unfair labor practice means, you correct me if I'm wrong, is that the employer in violation of the Act exercised, intruded into, it interfered with, dominated for its purpose the action of the employee.
And in order to see it that that influence, that illicit influence is dissipated, the Board has a right to recommend or formulate certain measures.
And one of the measures that they suggest is that there be some independent, some antiseptic mode of determining what the real will of the employees is, isn't that right?Isn't that what it gets down here?
I can't accept one -- one statement that you make if the employer in this case dominated.
Well, I -- we -- I'm --
He -- he intruded --
-- on the --
He did something the law forbad.