Document: 373 U.S. 701 83 S.Ct. 1429 10 L.Ed.2d 646 LOCAL NO. 207, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS UNION, et al., Petitioners,v.Jacob PERKO. No. 482. Argued April 23 and 24, 1963. Decided June 3, David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Martin S. Goldberg, Youngstown, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case, involving a suit by union member against local union, raises issues federal preemption similar to those considered in Local 100, United Assn. Journeymen v. Borden, 690, 1423. 2 In present case respondent, Jacob Perko, filed complaint state court 207 International Association Bridge, Structural Ornamental Iron Workers Union certain its officers, petitioners here, seeking damages under common law. He alleged that several years he had been good standing iron workers employed 'as foreman' William B. Pollock Company; defendants without justification conspired deprive him right continue work foreman'; pursuant this conspiracy they demanded company discharge from his duties superintendent as result discharged, since prevented obtaining foreman ironwork representing plaintiff's foreman's rights suspended'; was entitled past future loss earnings amount $75,000. 3 An order trial be dismissed reversed Supreme Court Ohio remanded trial, 168 St. 161, 151 N.E.2d 742. The disposed union's argument Perko failed exhaust internal remedies noting that: 4 'Plaintiff is not attempting secure any redress * *. alleging which belonged named officials thereof committed common-law tort conspiring earn living interfering with contract employment *.' St., at 162, N.E.2d, 744. 5 answer law precluded exercise jurisdiction, stated there no regard action 'to recover tort, also an unfair labor practice', citing Machinists Gonzales, 356 617, 78 923, 1018. 6 At verdict directed petitioners, but ruling on appeal, second held. evidence showed generally worked 'foreman' or 'superintendent';1 December 1953 working particular project; capacity gave instructions boilermakers respect performance phases claimed; following incident charged members petitioner assisting violation rule2 found guilty, fined suspended membership. fine, however, later placed probation, being permitted resume payment dues. 7 According introduced informed company, after settlement jurisdictional dispute boilermakers, would longer take orders because 'educating their work.' Some weeks completion project, laid off 'due union,' did thereafter obtain Pollock, other either foreman. 8 jury brought $25,000 judgment affirmed Appeals. App., 187 407. That rejected again contention State held merits although 'there very little supports cause sued here,' sufficient sustain verdict. appeal 'for reason debatable constitutional question involved.' 173 576, 184 100. We granted certiorari, 371 939, 318, 9 274, consider petitioner's claim lacked jurisdiction over virtue National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151—168. outset we note reasons set forth 1423, rationale Gonzales does support need now vitality light more recent decisions. As crux here concerned interference existing prospective relations matters. Indeed itself observed union.' Supra, p. 703. Thus permissible remedy award consequential might subordinated. Respondent contends, event matter clearly subject Board's cognizance.3 basis respondent's job superintendent, thus 'supervisor' within meaning Act,4 time excluded scope, operation, protection There are, believe, two independent conclusive answers argument, both establish falls squarely principles declared San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775. 11 First, even if it conceded supervisor, least reasonably arguable foreman, term has used 'employee' function apparently transmit instructions, originate them. See, e.g., New York Shipping Assn., 116 N.L.R.B. 1183. many foreman,' actions defendant were designed subsequently foreman.' indicated sometimes regular worker gang, superintendent. 12 It evident presents difficult problems definition status, have are precisely 'of kind most wisely entrusted initially agency day-to-day administration Act whole.' Marine Engineers Beneficial Interlake Steamship Co., 370 173, 180, 82 1237, 1241, 418. entirely possible Board conclude facts employee man whose status fluctuates, Perko's seemingly did, afforded employees Act. Given such conclusion, complaint—that caused subsequent well superintendent—falls ambit practices prohibited 8(b)(1)(A) 8(b)(2) Act.5 And petitioners' resulted rule, reasonable likelihood these premises committed. See discussion Borden U.S., pp. 694—695, S.Ct., 1425 1426. 13 Second, assumed solely probability still cognizable so compel relinquishment jurisdiction. supervisor failure effectively cierce into renouncing affiliation constitutes § 8(a)(1) nonsupervisory fear meet same fate adhered union; instances sustained ordering reinstatement back pay. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., Cir., 213 F.2d 209, 40 A.L.R.2d 404; cf. Better Monkey Grip 243 836. So may insistence comply rules violate inevitably tend coerce observing rules. If so, surely power 10(c) reimburse lost wages. 14 Moreover, forces employer conduct 8(b)(1)(B) coerces 'employer selection representatives purposes collective bargaining adjustment grievances.' Cf. Typographical Board, 278 6, aff'd part equally divided Court, 365 705, 81 855, 36; 294, Brotherhood Teamsters, etc., 284 893. Whether 'job superintendent' like responsibilities grievances bring section play cannot ascertained record, initial determination Board. But occurred, especially view role interunion rise controversy, certainly insignificant. 15 do course intimate underlying substantive questions, is, whether guilty enough hold, do, plain number scores lawsuit 'arguably' comes deal practices. therefore must yield below reversed. 16 Reversed. 17 DOUGLAS CLARK dissent 541, 698, 18 GOLDBERG took consideration decision case. record indicates 'superintendent' entire construction who grojps various crafts. One each craft group designated responsibility receiving transmitting them crew. rule provided 'any leaves go boilermaker assist way will $500.' (Emphasis added.) challenge existence requisite effect commerce scope Section 2(3) defines including individual supervisor.' 2(11) having authority, interest employer, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline employees, responsibly direct them, adjust grievances, recommend action, connection foregoing authority merely routine clerical nature, requires use judgment.' 8(b) provides shall practice organizatiion agents '(1) restrain (A) guaranteed *,' '(2) attempt discriminate subsection (a)(3) 8(a) '(3) discrimination hire tenure condition encourage discourage membership organization. *'

Category: 9