Document: 338 U.S. 355 70 S.Ct. 166 94 L.Ed. 161 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO.v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al. No. 47. Argued Nov. 17, 1949. Decided Dec. 5, Mr. Ricardo J. Hecht, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Miss Ruth Weyand, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question we have here is whether a closed-shop contract, entered into and performed in good faith, valid state where made, protects an employer from charge unfair labor practices under National Labor Relations Act.1 2 Petitioner was found by Board to violated §§ 8(1) 8(3) Act.2 On petition review cross-petition enforcement its order, Court Appeals Ninth Circuit decree enforcing Board's order.3 We granted certiorari limited construction § Act relation this case,4 i.e., examine applicability so-called Rutland doctrine,5 applied Board. doctrine has been approved Second,6 Third,7 Circuits,8 but disapproved Seventh Circuit.9 3 At period time 1945, petitioner company engaged producing glycerin war purposes. no record antiunion or anti-organizational activities. Its employees were first organized represented 1936 union affiliated with American Federation Labor. In 1938 International Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union, Congress Industrial Organizations, became representative petitioner's employees. July 9, 1941, C.I.O. collective bargaining contract which contained provision these words: 4 'Section 3. Employer agrees that when new are be hired do any work covered Section One (1), they shall through offices provided Union able furnish competent workers required. event unable workers, may hire outside sources, so make application membership within fifteen (15) days their employment. agreement members standing employ other than subject conditions herein above prescribed. hiring help (for warehouses), Warehouse Local 1—6, I.L.W.U.' 5 This faith parties served as foundation amicable relations over four years. It indefinite duration. 24, supplemental 'shall remain full force effect' pending approval certain agreed-upon items, provision, War instant proceedings, extended agreement, made compliance proviso Act.10 6 26, shortly after making open agitation change began. 31 unauthorized strike occurred participated substantial majority lasted two one-half days, although had pledged not during war-time. A group formed independent organization later sought affiliate A.F. L. There much propagandizing among warnings issued would disciplined rival activity, if discharged jobs 7 Altogether some 37 suspended expelled activities behalf fight between unions control, because participation contrary policy. These petitioner, advice counsel, upon demand ground longer 'members standing' required contract. knew, found, discharge demanded activity. 8 October 16 won election held determine employees, hostilities substantially concluded.11 9 charged violation guilty thereof having carried out terms at request representative. ordered restore former positions without loss seniority pay. order decreed should enforced review. 10 discharges effect interfering employees' right, given Act, self-organization representatives own choosing. Nor there discriminating, prohibition 8(3), tenure contention such interference discrimination taken category pursuant employer's obligations authorized permitted Act.12 admits supported says duration one case Owners, Inc., 44 N.L.R.B. 587, 46 1040. determined even though when, knowledge, requested purpose eliminating who it appropriate seek redetermination representatives. reason holding will presently discussed. facts stated brief follows: 11 'The validly conformity Act. concluded, however, that, virtue term run more years, undertook oust representatives.' 12 contends therefore protected 13 take conclusion dispute validity far concerned. Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wisconsin Empl. Rel. Bd., 336 301, 69 584, nothing precludes prohibiting contracts whole part. also look law California, validity. think clear, understand contend otherwise, California law. Shafer Registered Pharmacists 1172, Cal.2d 379, 106 P.2d 403; Park Tilford Import Corp. Brotherhood Teamsters, etc., 848, 27 599, 165 891, 162 A.L.R. 1426; James Marinship Corp., 25 721, 155 329, 160 900; case, supra, page 736, 338, Supreme explicitly recognized expel persons 'have interests inimical union' 'the right reject refuse abide reasonable regulation lawful policy adopted union'. See Davis Alliance, Employees, 60 Cal.App.2d 713, 715, 141 486, 488, law, 'An natural self preservation, propriety show disloyalty joining organization.' 14 claimed impotency defense rests declared That avowed solution what conceives anomalous situation, guarantees select freely bargaining, while permits inherent possibilities invasion guaranteed 7. arrived urged here, give permit circumvention turn contention. 15 oldest techniques art closed shop.13 integrity provides stability relations. To achieve primary objective enacting Act.14 knew shop interfere freedom organize another would, used, lead inevitably employment.15 Nevertheless, realization limitation 7, inserted 8(3). necessary us justify Congress. enough find statute. cannot defeated policy, practice ignore plain provisions accordance letter spirit statute reform conform idea correct sustain guise administration put limitations placed reality whatever present came employer, fellow-employees dischargees. Shorn embellishment, makes employer. Yet legislative history conclusively shows Congress, rejecting proposed Tydings amendment refused word hamper coercion fellow-employees.16 emasculation pressed enact sustained. must remembered contest primarily control. quite suppose thought conducive live up voluntarily representative, regardless internal disruptions growing exercised choose bound them lived years subsisting question. administrative doctrine. 17 Nothing said Wallace Board, 323 248, 65 238, 89 216, supports position here. said: 18 'It deprivation rights minority discriminatorily collaboration Independent done alone. indirection, medium 'union' creation, sanction readily-contrived mechanism evasion Act.' 256, 242. 19 company-supported union, supporting it. While does 'established, maintained, assisted action defined practice.' So concluded that: disestablishment renounce contracts.' 251, 239. Thus deal scope protection afforded could case. 20 judgment reversed, directions dismiss complaint. 21 Reversed directions. 22 REED BURTON dissent. adjustment permissible. use privilege free exercise laborers' choice seem 23 DOUGLAS took part consideration decision 49 Stat. 449 seq., 29 U.S.C. 151 U.S.C.A. seq. Matter Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Company, 1202. 171 F.2d 956. 337 913, 1155. Geraldine Novelty Co., 173 14; Colonie Fibre 163 65; White Cross Laboratories, 75. Public Service Transport, 177 119. 956; 2880, Lumber Sawmill Workers United Broth. Carpenters Joiners America, L., 158 365, 331 798, 67 1305, 91 1824, denied on motion 332 845, 68 347, 92 416. Aluminum America 159 523; Lewis Meier L.R.R.M. 2093 (Nov. 1947). Sec. 8. employer— '(3) By regard employment condition encourage discourage organization: Provided, * code prescribed thereunder, States, preclude (not established, practice) require therein, section 9(a), unit made.' 452, 158(3), 158(3). thereafter set aside objections filed prevented result being truly wishes. Supra, n. 10. Peterson, Unions, p. (1945). Rev. Jerome Toner Closed Shop Movement, published auspices Catholic University Studies Economics, vol. traces principle English guild system, forerunner movement, desire antedates Revolution unionism. Id. 22, 58 449, 151, 151; S.Rep.No.573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935); H.R.Rep.Nos.969, 972, H.R.Rep.No.1147, (1935). statement Senator Wagner: Hearings before Senate Committee Education S.195, 47 Statement Millis, id. 179—180; House Reports accompanying bill: 15—17 During bill floor, amend adding words, 'free intimidation source.' debate followed clear employee-against-employee relations, designed only employee-employer defeated. 79 Cong.Rec. 7653—7658, 7675.

Category: 6