Document: 426 U.S. 407 96 S.Ct. 2140 48 L.Ed.2d 736 OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners,v.MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, etc. No. 74-1254. Argued March 29, 1976. Decided June 14, Syllabus Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act permits union- or agency-shop agreements between employers and unions, but § 14(b) authorizes States to exempt themselves from enact "right-to-work" laws prohibiting union agency shops. About two years after petitioner unions respondent employer had entered into an agreement covering seamen employed on respondent's oil tankers, brought suit claiming that was invalid unenforceable because it violated Texas' right-to-work laws. Since, Inter alia, all final decisions for hiring are made in Texas, majority then reside personnel records maintained payroll checks written there, District Court held Texas "intimate concern" with agreement, notwithstanding spend vast their working hours away high seas, therefore were applicable under rendered void unenforceable. The Appeals affirmed, stressing place hiring. Held: 1. It is employees' predominant job situs rather than a generalized weighing factors triggers operation 14(b), cannot permitted by 8(a) (3) when at which employees covered perform most work located outside State having such Pp. 412-419. (a) Insofar as deals agreements, focuses both effect purpose Post -hiring conditions, conditions have major impact situs. 414-416. (b) Similarly, 14(b)'s primary concern state regulation employer-employee-union relationship, center situs, I. e., where very Raison d' etre relationship performed; this close does not allow enforcement regard employment whose principal 416-418. (c) Under test, opposed possibility patently anomalous extraterritorial applications any given State's will be minimized parties entering collective-bargaining easily able determine virtually situations whether provision valid. 418-419. 2. test govern validity question, done territorial bounds Texas. immaterial may more contacts other involved, since there no reason conclude every situation Some law respect union-security must apply, fully consistent national labor policy conclude, if boundary State, has sufficient interest hence can apply. 420-421. 504 F.2d 272, reversed. Laurence Gold, Washington, D. C., petitioners. James W. Hambright, Beaumont, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Act, 49 Stat. 452, amended, 61 140, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), matter federal enter establish shops.1 151, 73 541, 164(b), however, allows individual Territories so-called shops.2 We decide whetherunder unlicensed who, while hired number seas. 2 * Petitioners (hereinafter Union)3 represent who employer's tankers. In November 1969 Union provided shop: "For duration Agreement shall, condition employment, become members and/or alternative pay regular dues initiation fees within 31 days date." App. 281. Almost filed United Eastern 301 Management 156, 185, laws.4 3 Uncontested evidence presented trial concerning relevant locations various aspects Union, respondent, seamen. Because bears heavily contentions parties, we shall summarize some detail. Respondent division Mobil Oil Corp., New York corporation, operates fleet eight oceangoing tankers transport petroleum products Atlantic coast ports. headquartered maintains its there. Sixty percent ships Beaumont 40% York. Beaumont. Of 289 man 123 maintain residence 60 York.5 One hundred fifty-two list shipping port designation determines travel allowances seaman's remainder either Providence, R. Seamen elect paid wages aboard ship, paychecks sent office designated recipients, use combination these schemes. issue here negotiated executed re-executed 4 A typical trip one port, Providence York, ports, takes 41/2 5 days. Loading unloading 18 30 hours. No 10% To 20% seamen's time spent Based above evidence, reflected findings fact, concluded "(the acts performed administration performance collective bargaining intimately concerned thereunder." 29. Relying concern," court 6 three-member Fifth Circuit, judge dissenting, 483 603 (1973). could apply On rehearing en banc full court, over dissent six members, vacated affirmed judgment 272 (1974). identified analyzed interests issue, placing special stress fact take "the legislation, predominance jurisdiction, significant applying right warrant application and, consequently, invalidation shop provision." Id., 275. granted certiorari, 423 820, 32, 46 37 (1975), now reverse. II 7 All agreed central inquiry case respondent.6 Only so read unenforceable.7 similarly only rationships adequate contact. crux differences concerns come 14(b). 8 well Amicus curiae, argues nature directed mandates controlling factor determining applicability seas contends "(t)he sufficiency state's determined looking whole relationship." Brief 15. Giving weight see Supra, 410-411, concludes validly s third approach, adopted dissenting case, t location process should determinative also, would 9 light what understand Congress' been, hold 10 8(3) Wagner enacted 1935, closed shops, shops permitted. But 1947, 8(a)(3), added Taft-Hartley Congress reacted widespread abuses closed-shop banning arrangements.8 still permitted, 8(a)(3). That makes discrimination favor against unfair practice contains following proviso NLRB v. General Motors 373 734, 83 1453, 670 (1963): 11 "Provided, nothing subchapter statute States, preclude making organization . require membership therein thirtieth day thbeginning effective date whichever later ." 12 While permitting agency- union-shop certain safeguards subject agreements. Thus second warns: 13 "(N)o justify employee nonmembership (A) he reasonable grounds believing available same terms generally (B) denied terminated reasons failure tender periodic uniformly required acquiring retaining membership." 14 Like decision ban provide reflects compulsory unionism. But, stark contrast they focused process. Rather, fulfilled After already hired, least job-site.9 Moreover, quite apart provided, union-securitagreements that, law, allowed getting benefits representation without paying them. Again, focus Not process, derived during period job. Thus, Senate Committee Report became observed gives "employers feel (union-security) promoted stability eliminating 'free riders' continue arrangements." S.Rep.No.105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., (1947), Leg.Hist. 413. "Congress recognized absence 'many sharing accomplish refuse share cost.' p. 6, L.M.R.A. 412." supra, 740-741, S.Ct., 1458. 15 short, insofar security less onerous 16 articulates valid Territory wishes itself policy. "requiring employment."10 those exempted 8(a)(3)'s "(t)here conflict law; sanctioned directions give way .. " Retail Clerks Schermerhorn, 375 96, 103, 84 219, 222, 179 (1963). question here, course, call play mandated deference law. 17 simply mirrors part employment. As language reflects, designed make clear left free pursue "their own restrictive policies agreements." Algoma Plywood Co. Wisconsin Board, 336 301, 314, 69 584, 591, 93 L.Ed. 691 (1949). Since prohibits shop, relate hired. evident, then, relationship. And post-hiring performed. centrality also suggested House bill contained substance finally report House's intent providing "only undethe performed." H.R.Rep.No.245, 34 325. Where "performed" open debate, think reading phrase import committee viewed allowing calling State. contain precise wording bill, indication changes alter performance. 19 Whether taken separately together, relies residence, locale records, written, nearly And, 20 Two practical considerations bolster our conclusion First, minimize extra-territorial Use insure continuing current vel non provision. hand, factor, instance, solely Connecticut perhaps many ago believe passing tsanction result. 21 evaluates jurisdiction's order might result irrational applications. suffer disadvantages being predictable difficult test. By contrast, often considerable uncertainty forced identify evaluate jurisdiction potential proposed unpredictability inject burdens litigation it, us unwilling impute adopt test.11 III 22 Having whether, disposition clear. here. Territory's applicable.12 Federal favors unless expresses contrary via 23 Accordingly, 24 So ordered. 25 Chief BURGER concurs judgment. 26 STEVENS, concurring. 27 I prepositional "in Territory" modifies immediately preceding noun "employment." This analysis Court's opinion, join except suggestion 28 POWELL, concurring Although concur Court, do necessary "job situs" appropriate generally. before contracts maritime workers thereby enjoy status. noted Judge Ainsworth, writing Appeals: "(S)eamen traditionally exceptional status control section reasonably construed remove them category. Seamen, particularly type blue-water involved wards admiralty been accorded protection unknown domain master-servant Unlike land-based worker, rights restrictions flowing therefrom, statutory traditional phase relationships refutes proposition (respondent's) injecting affairs." 284-286 (CA5 1974) (footnotes omitted). 32 reversing Appeals, 33 STEWART, whom REHNQUIST joins, dissenting. corporation home City. Gulf-East Coast Operations Division Mobil's Marine Transportation Department, American-flag These ports coast. Every month each tanker normally round-trip voyages. average voyage ship sea four five spends approximately load unload cargo. 35 Maritime Local 8-801 Oil, Chemical Atomic Workers International represents When lawsuit began, claimed residence,1 152 requested company atheir port. first applied jobs collected unemployment compensation insurance premiums employees, regardless his address 36 duties ship. They 85 receive shore leave. Eighty 90% seagoing employees. Among provisions, clause "members challenge present 2201, seeking declaratory violates Texas.2 38 agreeing agreement. accordingly declared divided panel Circuit initially reversed judgment, (1973), banc, appellate "federal 39 Sections §§ 158(a)(3) delineate arrangements. 8(a)(3)3 says "shall day" qualifies first: 40 41 Together, provisions sanction "union shop" which, although requires (or lieu membership) begun. outlaw "closed precondition initial continued 738-739, 1457, 42 modified well. See 739-740, 1457-1458; S.Rep. 105, (1947); H.Conf.Rep. 510, U.S.Cong.Serv.1947, 1135. curb unionism, "create(d) too great barrier employment," time, afford measure enabling prevent "free riders." 7. stated Case, 1458: 43 "(T)hese additions (to 8(a)(3)) intended twin purposes. serious unionism eliminated abolishing shop. 44 thus accommodated competing hall assuring "(a)s far concerned, way." U.S., 741, 1458, 6-7. 45 chose uniform rule arrangements sort public interest. 313-314, 590-591, states: "Nothing authorizing execution requiring prohibited Territorial law." 47 "to forestall inference exclusive." Co., 591. "was sections completely extinguishing power desired 'make certain' 'be said authorize policy.' 746, 751, 1461, 1464, 678 (1963), quoting H.R.Conf.Rep. 60. summarize, together exhaust types make. absolutely prohibited. lesser arrangement, though interest, harmonizes undisputed forbids agreements.4 extend bar petitioners contend depends upon 80% "favoring" prevail.5 Government aeeing petitioners, asserts substantial enough little borders. turn, relying claims key analyzing choice-of-law problem. 50 provides guidance prevail multijurisdictional situation. prescribe threshold: laws, "execution" "application" "Execution" are, broadly inclusive nouns. hardly conceivable wish enforce sense Yet clearly multistate plausibly argue "execution." "execution," example, considered contract signed carried out. "Application" refer work. intelligent infer expansive arguably deemed dispositive contact deciding 51 specific legislative history greater aid resolving dilemma.6 did problems inevitably arise force situations. entirely signposts. legislated write clean slate, few issues American controverted moral legitimacy indeed, legality, unnecessary review long controversy.7 realize resolve instead eh perceived keeping industrial relations individualistic, open, free. 52 apparently recorded exists interpret design Legislature, statutes suggests was, democratize Preamble Public Policy Art. 5154a, 1, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (1971), states part: 53 "Because activities affecting economic country practically business enterprise, Legislature organizations affect charged use. man, unionist non-unionist, protected. live." (Emphasis added.) Article 5207a 54 "Section inherent person bargain freely employer, individually collectively, infringed whatever nature. 55 "Sec. account union." Finally, 5154g, 56 "It hereby persons abridged non-membership exercise threats, force, iimidation coercion." 57 Each passages bespeaks preserving freedom woman unhindered coerced unwanted association.8 58 Lunsford City Bryan, 156 Tex. 520, 523, 297 S.W.2d 115, 117 (1957), Supreme interpreted statutes: "The seems obvious protect choice joining union. equal opportunity classes employees." authoritative judicial interpretation confirms manifest hiring, burden 59 purposes agree case. true legitimately assert reside, negotiated, actually took claims. believe, is, goes, purposes, Texas.9 place, deeply hire. unrestricted seriously undermined jurisdiction. occurs bulk drawn. designating ease application, encourage forum shopping management interests. Against analysis, Government, Amicus, explain, relevance exclusively Cf. A. Von Mehren & Trautman, Law Multistate Problems 76-79, 102-105 (1965). Indeed, probably entire conflicts legality undeniable, point out, day-to-day occurs. reflect safety, rules, grievance procedures, similar concerned.10 resolution applies therefore, arbitrary my view approach irrationality. 62 even jobsite critical find Quite simply, larger 63 perceive presenting vertical If controls, according perception, "federal" Ipso facto prevails, 64 suggest somewhat inconsistent theories intrusion law" like Columbia, territory exercises exclusive, pre-emptive jurisdiction.11 theory untenable. undoubtedly Admiralty Clause, III, 2, pre-empt field E. g., Panama Johnson, 264 375, 386, S.. 391, 393, 68 748 (1924); Knickerbocker Ice Stewart, 253 149, 160, 438, 440, 834 (1920); G. Gilmore C. Black, 45-47 (1975); Currie, Federalism Admiralty: Devil's Own Mess," 1960 Sup.Ct.Rev. 158, 158-165. exercised liberally regulate, 563-568. Nevertheless, Frankfurter Romero Terminal Operating 358 354, 373, 79 468, 480, 368 (1959): 65 "Although corpus derives implications evolved courts, claim enforced pertaining matters rooted destructive oversimplification highly intricate interplay commerce. yield needs finds inroads harmonious system. limitation leaves wide scope." 66 "wide scope" legislate about things maritime. refute notion species enclave, out found legislation pre-empted problem unduly hampered See, Askew Waterways Operators, Inc., 411 325, 337-344, 1590, 1598-1601, 280 (1973); Kossick Fruit 365 731, 81 886, 891-92, (1961); Huron Cement Detroit, 362 444, 80 813, 816, 852 (1960). never struck down ground jurisdictionally incompetent legisle occur ocean "territory." 67 appear argue, exclusive lawmaking power, outlawing fall relations. Southern Pacific Jensen, 244 205, 216, 524, 529, 1086 (1917); 165 Passim. affairs covers, among things, liens collection wages, 953, half unpaid earned, 597, double payment withheld cause, 596, physical qualifications requirements seamen, 672, disciplinary problems, 701-710. Despite controls. face settles apparent rule. enacting diversity area compromise "By authorized multiformity subject, guaranteed it." Motor Coach Employees Lockridge, 403 274, 317, 91 1909, 1933, 473 (1971) (White, J., dissenting). past interstate industry hesitated act. For 1951 Railway Fifth, Fully aware amended permit railroad carriers "(n)otwithstanding (Act), thereof, Eleventh. Employes' Dept. Hanson, 351 225, 76 714, 100 1112 (1956). compelling compatible permissible 70 conclusion, criterion, other, refrained establishing indicating need would, affirm us. short An "agency union, usually sum fee obligated payments dues. varieties security" distinguished barred hire member full: settled encompasses There 8-801. Both prohibit, denial anyone "any fee, assessment, money whatsoever" Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., 8a (1971). provisions. Op. Atty. Gen. WW-1018 (1961). residences spread States. minimal unconstitutional. Nor lacked wished, prohibit altogether. encompassed nonetheless permissible. "s (which) passes muster standards." Kentucky AFL-CIO Puckett, 391 360 (Ky.1965); Grimes Hauer, Inc. Pollock, 163 Ohio St. 372, 127 N.E.2d 203 (1955). (1963); Legislative History 1947 Leg.Hist.), 412 (1948). explaining distinction draws hand Senator Taft noted: difference instance get asking once days, ascertain capable employee. me much important. important thing job." Cong.Rec. 4886 1422. n. Supra. Our Board's provision, 159(e)(1) (1946 ed., Supp. I), Board circumstances conduct elections negotiation eligible vote Giant Food Shopping Center, 77 N.L.R.B. 791 (1948), Western Electric 1019 (1949), indicated another Territory. argued "allow create bizarre consequence exempting 14(b)." 280-281 further observed, pointing amendment Eleventh, "when decided supersede expressly." F.2d, "exemption" industry. workers, longshoremen, amendments irrelevant superseded, instance. listed Jersey, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Rhode Island. resided conceded kind involved. 4, Infra. reads "(3) tenure term discourage organization: Provided, subchapter, (not established, maintained, assisted action defined subsection practice) beginning later, (i) representative 159(a) title, unit made; (ii) election 159(e) title year certified voted rescind authority agreement: Provided further, Opinion (1961), Attorney violate 8a, 5207a, legal passed forbidding them, whereas illegal choose Burdens allocated variety reasons, achievement disfavored Another equally plausible explanation disruption absent legislation. considering (1947). Had placed legislating wishing Legalize three-fourths worded, preserve quo. sum, deducing construction despite leaving preferred relied condemned evils support 277, 1974). context cited clear, 6-7, led forbidden exhausted hall. Morris, Early America, 136-207 (1946); P. Sultan, Right-To-Work Laws: Study Conflict 12-30 (1958); J. Toner, Closed Shop 1-92 (1942); Dempsey, Controversy, Lab.L.J. 387 (1965); Warshal, "Right-to-Work," Pro Con, 131 (1966); Simons, Reflections Syndicalism, J.Pol.Econ. (1944). Meyers, Effects "Right-To-Work" Ind. Lab.Rel.Rev. 77, (1955) (concluding "little effect" rate selected industries). minority (and shops), through arrangement Comment, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1620, 1629-1630 (1975). Such solution, likely crew different regimes, disrupt unjustifiable uncertainties Dale System, Time, 116 F.Supp. 527 (D.C.Conn. 1953); 395 hold, governed single suggests, Ante 419, adopting contention begs question. components inevitable activity sea, facts conflict-of-laws strictures evaded, companies relocate answer turns meant evasion. centers actual, fictional, made. sham relocation engage rules actual If, evasion used characterize genuine corporate relocation, including motivated quest favorable illegitimate devious company's moving new advantage lower prevailing wage rates, taxes, raw materials, production costs, Or operate worth noting all. characterized superior inferior authority, territory. legalizing horizontal conflict, competent bodies, plenary respective territories, conflict. properly horizontal, Columbia

Category: 6