RESPONDENT: Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
LOCATION: Oakland County, Michigan
DOCKET NO.: 76-719
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
CITATION: 434 US 335 (1978)
ARGUED: Oct 31, 1977
DECIDED: Jan 17, 1978
Norton J. Come - for petitioner
Sydney L. Berger - for respondents
Facts of the case
Media for National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIOAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 31, 1977 in National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 17, 1978 in National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO
Warren E. Burger:
The judgment and opinion of the court in 76-719,National Labor Relations Board against Local Union 103, and others will be announced by Mr. Justice White.
Byron R. White:
This case involves Section 8F of National Labor Relations Act.
The provision which permits employers and unions in the construction industry to enter in their so called pre-hire agreements.
Setting wages and hours and working conditions, even though union does not then represent a majority of the employees that might be working on later projects, that the employer undertakes.
The section however permits the union, or the employer or the employees to seek an election at any time after the signing of pre-hire agreement.
And the union must then demonstrate its majority status, if it is to purport to represent all of the employees in the unit.
This case arises because of the National Labor Relations Board's rule, that the union's majority status is also up for challenging and fairly reflected its proceedings.
Here the union picketed the employer claiming that the employer was in violation of his pre-hire agreement.
The employer responded by filing a charge with the board claiming that the picketing was recognitional picketing contrary to section 87.
The board held that, that because the union had not demonstrated its majority.
Indeed it was stipulated that it had no majority at that time.
That the union was not entitled to picket, to enforce a contract in the manner that a collective bargaining agent could do and the board went on to hold that the picketing was recognitional and in violation of 87.
Court of Appeals reversed, the Court held essentially that although the union's standing was challengable in an election.
It was not a challengable and unfair labor practice proceedings and the union thus here was simply picketing to enforce a contract as it was entitled to do according to the Court of Appeals.
We reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons that will appear in the opinion we have filed, we agree essentially with the National Labor Relations Board.
We think their construction, application of the act is reasonable of one even if not the only one that might be acceptable.
So we reverse the judgment of Court of Appeals.
Mr. Justice Stewart has filed the dissenting opinion and he has joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens.
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you, Mr. Justice White.