Evening star., 1939-02-27
Labor Board Decision
On Longshoreman
Bargaining Upheld
Appeals Court Dismisses
A. F. l. Protest Against
Ruling Booking c. !. O.

The United States Court of Ap-
peals, in a decision handed down
today, dismissed the petition of the
American Federation of Labor.
brought against the National Labor
Relations Board. regarding a deci-
sion to authorize the c. I. o. as the
exclusive representative for collec-
tive bargaining of all West Coast
longshore employees.
The appellate tribunal, in its de-
is renewable only in an independent
suit in equity commenced in Dis
trict Court.
The c. I. O. filed a petition asking
that National Labor Relations Board
to hold that the employer unit
should embrace the entire West
Coast and to certify its affiliate as
exclusive bargaining agent. The A.
F. L. answered the petition, denying
the boards power to prescribe unit
larger than single employer.
Accepted by Employers.
After lengthy hearings. the board
on June 81 last made findings of
fact and conclusions of law and is
sued its certificate whereby some
zoo or more employers operating in
different ports from Canada to
Mexico were united in one unit and
found that G. l. O. organizations
represented the majority of the
workers of the whole. Without
question, the employers accepted
the certification, said the court in
its opinion today, and made COL
lective contract in which the C. I. O.
was recognized as the exclusive rep
.resentative of all West Coast long
shore employees.
The A. F. of L., with its affiliates,
asked the board for rehearing. but
this was denied, and the organiza-
ton then appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals here. The
board appeared in the appellate
tribunal and filed a special ap-
pearance" objecting to the jurisdic-
lion of this court to hear the appeal
end moved to dismiss. The A. F..
Of l.. in its petition, asked the court
20 review and set aside the National
Labor Relations Board order.
The decision was written by Chief
Justice D. Lawrence Groner who
heard the case with Associate JUS
tices Justin Miller and Fred Vinson.
The question before the court
was whether the decision appealed
from is a final order" within the
terms of the National Labor Re-
?atlons Act. The decision affects
some $4,000 employees in some 80
ports on the Pacific Coast.
Decision Not Order.
The appellate court held that the
toard S decision was not an order"
within the meaning of the language
Of the Supreme Court. Accordingly.
because it is not an order. it is not
sppealable and is subject to chal-
]enee and judicial review only by
bill in equity.
accepting, as We must, this re-
strictive definition and applying it
to the case at hand" said the opin-
ION today, I'VE hold that, though
the decision here was required bv
the act to be made and to be made
on the evidence and argument after
judicial hearing and though it was
oeinitive, adversary. binding, final. |
and in this case struck at the very
roots of petitioners union and de-
stroyed its effectiveness in large
geographical area of the Nation, it
was not an order because the act
Gid not require it to be made in the
language of command and hence
is reviewable-as was held in Shields
case, supra, and in Utah Fuel Co.
versus National Bituminous Coal
Commission decided January 80 |
1939)-only in an independent suit
IN equity commenced in a District |
Court.
Representing the National Labor
Relations Board were Attorneys
Robert B. Watts and Laurence A.
KnaDD