Evening star., 1940-01-02

the United States Court of Appeals
here as "a person aggrieved by a
final order of the board" in order to
obtain a determination of the power
Of the board to prescribe the coast
wide bargaining unit.
Petitioning for review, the fedora
ton said the certification was con-
trary to-. the Labor Relations Act
because it took in more than one
employer: that although selected by
a majority of employees of large
number of individual employers and
functioning as the bargaining agents
for thousands of longshoremen the
A. F. of L. was deprived of its rights
and that its membership was being
destroyed.
The board declared on the con-
trary that the Court of Appeals
had no jurisdiction and the court
itself agreed with this definition, de-
claring the board ruling was not
final order" within the meaning of
the act.
I'm analyzing the provisions of
the statute in order to ascertain its
true meaning, we attribute little
importance to the fact that the GER
tification does not itself command
action" Justice Stone said. "Ad-
ministrative determinations which
are not commands may for all prac-
tical purposes determine rights as
effectively as the judgment Of a
court and may be re-eXamined by
courts under particular statutes
providing for the review of orders.
We must look rather to the language
of the statute read in the light of its
purpose and legislative history to
ascertain whether order for which
the review in court is provided is
contrasted with forms of admins
trative action differently described
as a purposeful means of excluding
them from the review proceedings.
Here it is evident that the entire
structure of the act emphasizes for
purposes Of review the distinction
between an order Of the board re-
straining an unfair labor practice
and a certiflcation in representa-
ton proceedings. The one author
lied (by Section 10 of the act) may
be reviewed by the court on petition
of the board for enforcement Of an
order, or the person aggrieved in
conformity to the procedure laid
down Gin Section 10 of the act)
which says nothing of certiflcation.
The other, authorized (by Section
9 of the act is nowhere spoken
of as an order and no procedure
is prescribed for its review apart
from an order prohibiting an un-
fair labor practice
Review Provisions Limited.
This statute on its face then, the
court continued, indicates a pur-
pose to limit review provisions of
the act to orders of the board which
prohibits unfair labor practice, and
the court added that the legislative
history of the Labor Relations Act
confirms this purpose and con-
struction.
Justice Stone also wrote the
opinion in the consumers power case
saying the findings there we're con-
troled by those in the longshore
case. In that case an election was
held in February, 1898, to determine
the collective bargaining unit and
the c. I. o. got 1.164 votes; the A.
F. of L., 1,072, while 506 employees
did not vote for either side and the
go odd other ballots were thrown out
for other causes The c. I. o. there
upon asked to be certified as the
bargaining agent, but the board re-
jected this petition and ordered the
run-off, with only the c. I. o. unit
named on the ballot.
The International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers protesting this
action, went into the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals and had the order
stayed. The Court of Appeals said
I'VE think the order was illegal and
that the proposed election was un-
fair in effect" To this ruling the
Supreme Court said the direction
for an election is but part of the
representation proceedings autho-
rized by the act and is no more sub
ject to review than is a certifica-
ton which is the final step in such
a proceeding and which we have
just held Congress has excluded
from the review afforded by the act
Falk Opinion.
In the Falk opinion the corpora
ton had been ordered by the Labor
Board to break up its company union
and to hold an election to determine
a collective bargaining agency. In
this election the board put only the
c. I. o. affiliate, the Amalgamated
Association Of Iron Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, on the
ballot for certain classes of employees,
and this G. I. o. unit and the A. F
of L. International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers on another ballot
where these two unions were making
rival claims. When the board went
into the Seventh Circuit of Appeals
to put its order in effect, the court
modified the board order to the
extent that the Falk independent
union was to have a place on the
ballot, but that the corporation
itself could not recognize the organ
ization until and unless it was
chosen by a majority vote of the
employees as their bargaining agency.
Said the board:
AN election in which the inde-
pendent appears upon the ballot
will not permit a free choice BY
employees uninfluenced by the re-
spondent Falk)."
From the surrounding circum.