Document: 369 U.S. 17 82 S.Ct. 541 7 L.Ed.2d 503 RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNIONS NOS. 128 AND 633, Petitioners, v.LION DRY GOODS, INC., et. al. No. 73. Argued Jan. 17, 1962. Decided Feb. 26, S.G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Merritt W. Green, Toledo, Ohio, respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Section 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act,1 provides that "Suits violation contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in industry affecting commerce as defined this chapter, or any such organizations, may be brought district court United States having jurisdiction parties, without respect to amount controversy regard citizen parties." The questions presented case are: (1) Does scope "contracts" within § include agreement at bar, claimed not "collective bargaining contract" but "strike settlement agreement"? (2) If otherwise includible, is agreement" cognizable under 301(a), although petitioners, labor-organization parties agreement, acknowledged they were entitled recognition exclusive representatives respondents? 2 opinions below appear rest upon alternative holdings, answering negative each these questions. District Court's conclusion it lacked over subject matter, 179 F.Supp. 564, was affirmed brief per curiam by Court Appeals, saying: "The contract here involved collective its employees. We think trial correct reaching union are only intended actionable provisions section 301(a)." 286 F.2d 235. granted certiorari because importance enforcement national policy expressed 301(a). 366 917, 81 1094, 6 240. hold lower courts erred remand cause further proceedings consistent with opinion.2 3 local unions Retail Clerks International Association, action on sole jurisdictional basis (b), seeking compel respondents' compliance two allegedly binding arbitration awards. Respondents department stores covered Act. For some years prior 1957, petitioners had been agreements In November negotiations renewal ended impasse. A strike ensued against one respondents, Lasalle's, continued until December 24, 1958; dispute other respondent, Lion Dry Goods, during whole those 13 months no occurred. On 1958, their aid Toledo Labor-Management-Citizens' Committee (hereinafter, L-M-C), mediation body.3 Negotiations means L-M-C produced "Statement Understanding"4 satisfactory all parties. 4 few days before proposed plan settling dispute. Discussions At time direct carried Each side made known discussed conditions side. manner fashioned which embodied Statement referred text. 5 contained key points unions' acknowledgement then representatives, would seek unless certified so single store unit elections conducted National Board, Lasalle's reinstate striking discrimination. Both also agreed continue effect detailed wage hour schedules working benefits, incorporated exhibits Statement. All terms employment force except provide pay fully specified insurance coverage. wrote delivering Statement, calling "the heretofore existing [the Locals] our compan[ies] finally resolved," specifying performed met us are, course, conditioned receipt your guarantees from respective organizations make principles enumerated [in Statement] completely effective." later Locals "we herewith agree Understanding." terminated. months, however, new grievances arose, including generated case. First. right access employees' cafeteria order communicate non-working time. ¶ gave cafeterias, "areas open customers."5 Second. Two employees, salesladies men's furnishings department, reinstated saleslady formerly assigned sell shirts sweaters, saleslady, who selling now shirts. submitted matters procedure 7; participated ensuing proceedings; award went both grievances. stores' refusal accede awards prompted suit. viewed crucial question whether given concurred Locals, constituted "such contemplated F.Supp., 567. Although somewhat ambiguous, we read holding there certain kinds purview them.6 interpret must contracts, arrived through bargaining," ibid.' further, recognized majority representative found Understanding neither test.7 Appeals' affirmance, supra, fails clear limitations if one. It argued Congress limited contracts," meaning, runs argument, concerning wages, hours, concluded employers 8 words require narrow construction suggested; rather, negate it. says though knew well phrase see, e.g., 8(d), 9(a), 201(c), 203(d), 204(a)(2), 211(a), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 158(d), 159(a), 171(c), 173(d), 174(a)(2), 181(a). Had restrictive differentiation, assume have eschewed contracts" unwittingly. Moreover, provided 211(a): "For guidance information interested employers, general public, Bureau Statistics * shall maintain file copies available actions thereunder adjusting disputes."8 Whatever proper Section, insofar reflects all, supports inference does more than agreements," lest respondents define them. "contracts, subsequent "or organizations" superfluous, follows represents See Office Employes Intern. Union, etc., v. 353 313, 77 799, 846. indulging surplusage: federal forum besides contracts. See, Textile Workers, Workers Cir., 258 743 (no-raiding agreement). But, urged, meant could sue another themselves, suits still contracts: provision inserted Conference.9 Differing House Senate bills reconciled Conference. bill spoke involving "an *." "contracts result *."10 urged Conference compromise word desire use cover unions, unions. But seems obvious limiting accomplished retaining bill's phrasing providing specifically application statute organizations." Third. 1959 enactment, 8(f),11 explicitly contemplates fit concept agreements." authorizes contracting represent persons yet even hired employer. Such might hiring procedures employment. Nothing improbable congressional intent closed 9 find, then, reading isolation connection whole, denying based alleged agreement." 10 Furthermore, statute's purpose defeated excluding Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 368 502, 519. kind enforceable responsible stable relations suffer, attainment objective minimizing disruption interstate difficult. answer particular state courts: main goal 301 precisely end "checkerboard jurisdiction," Seymour Schneckloth, 351, 358, 424, 428, 346. supra. 11 Lastly, legislative history refutes argument omit suit falling 301(a).12 12 need decide hold, do, "contract" purposes "Contract law term implications determined appears." J.I. Case 321 332, 334, 64 576, 579, 88 L.Ed. 762. enough clearly significant maintenance peace IT came into being sides terminating protracted Its affect effected picketing resort economic weapons, restored strikers jobs. resolved arising out of, importantly directly affecting, relationship. Plainly falls "[F]ederal should enforce behalf industrial can best obtained way." etc. Lincoln Mills, 448, 455, 912, 972. Only necessary dispose second contention, petitioners' disclaimer entitlement puts them court. This issue touch minority demand enter circumstances accord agents. "Labor employees" has meaning different "labor 301(b). Ryan, 350 299, 76 400, 100 335, rejected 301(b) representatives. Neither words, purpose, nor suggests reason virtually identical subsection (a). Nor differing "any subsection's very next phrase, plainly, vis-a-vis relevance whatever. 14 "Members only" long recognized. Consolidated Edison Co., 305 197, 59 206, 83 126. thought merit agents, expected provide, example, enacting 9(a). Compare 8(a)(3), 8(a)(5), 8(b)(3), 8(b)(4), 8(d). 8(f), amendment considered U.S., p. 27, S.Ct., 547, majority. courts' required preliminary determination status involved, potential conflict Board increased, cf. La Crosse Telephone Corp. Wisconsin Employment 336 18, 69 379, 93 463; Amazon Cotton Mill 167 183, litigation much hindered. 15 conclude judgment Appeals reversed remanded opinion. ordered. 16 Judgment FRANKFURTER, concurring. 18 I wholly rejecting have, serious doubt "statement understanding" settled fact contract, sense consensual arrangement rather formulation results intercession public-spirited intermediary prepared lay down arms. However, matter construing document, light surrounding circumstances, do dissent. 61 Stat. 156, U.S.C. 185(a), 185(a). claim moot since, after commencement action, merged Local 954 same Union form 954. Petitioners deny mootness move add substitute party. facts merger indistinguishable De Veau Braisted, 363 144, 80 1146, 1109; see Insurance Agents' 361 477, 419, 454. therefore moot, motion party granted. Before downtown stores, organization, Associates, Inc., executed multi-employer basis. When 1957 impasse developed, peti- tioners struck promptly contracted separately petitioned conduct election among three unit. reacted negotiate separately. Simultaneously, called respondent Lasalle's. considerable litigation. 128, Leedom, 42 LRR Man. 2031; 120 N.L.R.B. 388; Assn. 43 2004, 2029. (exhibits omitted) reads follows: "1. Employees absent due strike, will discrimination activities loss seniority reinstatement fifteen notice "2. complied Paragraph above, returned work February 2, 1959, scheduled Company, former position classifications vacant positions comparable duties earning opportunities. "3. understood returning devote vest efforts serving customer recognizing stability depends success business. "4. warrant Company reduce rates presently withdraw employee benefit programs currently provided. assurance includes improvements offered 15th, already effect. No discriminated against, activities, membership non-membership. job security discharged just cause. Wage appended Exhibit A. Copies hours requested attached B. "5. interfere employee's join union, guaranteed Labor-Management-Relations herein construed giving future discretion chosen Board. "6. agrees request rights proves above; recognize certification N.L.R.B.; petition representation preclude entering areas customers; communicating communication way interferes operating "7. Any individual grievance interpretation understanding L-M-C, his supervisor Personnel Department solution, take chairman whose decision final binding. panel render regulating hearing panel. "8. immediately statement Labor-Management-Citizens cease picketing, boycotting interference business R.H. Macy & Inc. wherever located. strikers, forthwith petitions, unfair practice charges Courts institute instant Employer execute mutually releases, releasing discharging other, capacity, papers, acted concert cooperation dispute, claims, demands, causes whatever nature description strikes, boycotting, taken place up present date. "9. become effective accordance letter transmittal dated 1958." Store's omission paragraphs 1, 3. parties' stipulation says, inter alia: "[T]he cafeterias defendants located relied view constitutes so, did mediator, conjoin signatures document. record makes independent only, unenforceable either other. stipulated "assumed attendance meeting perform functions delegated [the] Statements They "nothing [herein] finding Court, denied "that existence plaintiffs, them, defendants, collectively singly, whereby [L-M-C] authority arbitrate plaintiff's have." suggested contract: ending following old provisions, asked reconsider merits. Respondents' contention throughout, otherwise, all,but defense, 565. appears agreed; And point argue exists; jurisdictional. emphasized disclaimed Locals' agent 156.29 181(a), N.L.R.B., Legislative History Act, 1947, pp. 1535, 1543. id., 221, 279. 73 545, (Supp. II) 158(f), 158(f). n. 9, 94, 151, 279, 336-367, 399-400, 409, 421-424, 436, 475 (see 441), 569-570, 873, 927, 993, 1013, 1014, 1037, 1043, 1044, 1065-1066, 1074, 1076, 1078, 1118, 1123-1124, 1128, 1133, 1145-1146, 1150, 1166, 1208, 1325, 1342-1343, 1446, 1456, 1461, 1483, 1488, 1497, 1524, 1539, 1543, 1557-1558, 1619, 1626, 1654. None many references evinces consideration phrase.

Category: 6