Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/303/41.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:01:26+00:00

Document:
[303 U.S. 41, 43] Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R.I., for respondent Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation.
Mr. B. A. Brickley, of Boston, Mass., for respondents MacKenzie and others.
The question for decision is whether a federal District Court has equity jurisdiction to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from holding a hearing upon a complaint filed by it against an employer alleged to be engaged in unfair labor practices prohibited by National Labor Relations Act, July 5, 1935, c. 372, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in these cases that the District Court possesses such jurisdiction; and granted preliminary injunctions. Every other Circuit Court of Appeals in which the question has arisen has [303 U.S. 41, 44] held the contrary. 1 Because of the importance of the questions presented, the conflict in the lower courts and alleged conflict with our own decisions, we granted these writs of certiorari. 302 U.S. 667 , 58 S.Ct. 26, 27, 82 L.Ed. --.
The declared purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to diminish the causes of labor disputes burdening and obstructing interstate and foreign commerce; and its provisions are applicable only to such commerce. In order to protect it, the act seeks to promote collective bargaining; confers upon employees engaged in such commerce the right to form, and join in, labor organizations; defines acts of an employer which shall be deemed unfair labor practice; and confers upon the Board certain limited powers with a view to preventing such practices. If a charge is made to the Board that a person 'has engaged in or is engaging in any ... unfair labor practice,' and it appears that a proceeding in respect thereto should be instituted, a complaint stating the charge is to be filed, and a hearing is to be held thereon upon notice to the person complained of.
The Board duly notified the corporation that a hearing on the complaint would be held on April 27, 1936, at Boston, Mass., in accordance with rules and regulations of the Board, a copy of which was annexed to the notice; and that the corporation 'will have the right to appear, in person or otherwise, and give testimony.' [303 U.S. 41, 46] On that day the corporation filed, in the federal court for Massachusetts, the bill in equity, herein numbered 181, against A. Howard Myers, acting regional director for the First Region, National Labor Relations Board, Edmund J. Blake, its regional attorney for the First Region, and Daniel M. Lyons, trial examiner, to enjoin them from holding 'a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the plaintiff has engaged at its Fore River Plant in any so-called unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act, and from having any proceedings or taking any action whatsoever, at any time or times, with respect thereto.' There were prayers for a restraining order, an interlocutory injunction, and a permanent injunction; and also a prayer that the court declare that the National Labor Relations Act and 'defendants' actions and proposed actions thereunder' violate the Federal Constitution.
Upon the filing of each bill, the District Court issued a restraining order and an order of notice to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. In each case the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and also a return to the order to show cause. The cases were heard together. In each, the District Court issued the preliminary injunction; and the decrees therefor are still in efect. They were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Febru- [303 U.S. 41, 47] ary 12, 1937. 88 F.2d 154. Petitions for a rehearing, based upon the conflict with the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals, were denied. And the court denied also motions for leave to file a second petition for rehearing, based upon the decisions of this Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 , 57 S.Ct. 615, 108 A.L.R. 1352, and other cases rendered April 12, 1937. 1 Cir., 89 F.2d 1000. The District Court denied the motions to dismiss the bills. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. Meyers, 15 F.Supp. 915. But the review by the Circuit Court of Appeals dealt only with the decrees for a preliminary injunction.
The two cases present, in the main, the same questions. In discussing them reference will be made, in the first instance, only to the suit brought by the corporation.
Obviously, the rules requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy cannot be circumvented by asserting that the charge on which the complaint rests is groundless and that the mere holding of the prescribed administrative hearing would result in irreparable damage. 11 Lawsuits also often prove to have been ground- [303 U.S. 41, 52] less; but no way has been discovered of relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.
Fifth. In No. 182, also, the Circuit Court of Appeals should have reversed the decree for a preliminary injunction and directed dismissal of the bill. The plaintiffs, officers of the so-called Plan of Representation of Employees, alleged, in addition to the facts already stated, that the employees are satisfied with their existing contracts of employment and desire to retain the existing plan without change; that the holding of the proposed hearing will discredit the plan and destroy its usefulness to the employees; that they will be deprived of their right to negotiate by the method of their choice, the value of which has been proved by years of operation; that alteration of the plan will cause dissatisfaction among the employees; that operation of plant will be disrupted by labor disturbances; that employment will be interrupted; and that the damage to the employees will be irreparable. These additional allegations furnish no reason why the Board should be prevented from exercising the exclusive initial jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress.
[ Footnote 1 ] E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Boland, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 12; Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Schauffler, 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 730; Bradley Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97; Clark v. Lindemann & Hoverson Co., 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 59; Pratt v. Oberman & Co., Inc., 8 Cir., 89 F.2d 786; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind, 66 App. D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; compare Bowen v. James Vernor Co., 6 Cir., 89 F.2d 968; Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 92; Lyons v. Eagle- Picher Lead Co., 10 Cir., 90 F.2d 321.
[ Footnote 2 ] A Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at Bethlehem, Pa.
[ Footnote 3 ] A substituted bill of complaint was filed May 7, 1936.
[ Footnote 4 ] It is alleged that in 1934 and 1935 the predecessor of the present National Labor Relations Board instituted somewhat similar action against the corporation. Although the proceedings were eventually dismissed, the hearings consumed a total of some 2,500 hours of working time of officials and employees and cost the corporation more than $15,000, none of which could be recovered.
[ Footnote 6 ] See Section 11 of the Act and article II, sections 20 and 21, of the Rules and Regulations issued April 27, 1936. Compare Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160 , 47 S.Ct. 553; E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Boland, 2 Cir., 85 F.2d 12.
[ Footnote 8 ] In support of that contention the following cases were cited: Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287, 289 , 40 S.Ct. 527, 528; Bluefield Water Works Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 683 , 43 S.Ct. 675; Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 600 , 51 S.Ct. 608, 612; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 60 , 64 S., 52 S.Ct. 285, 296, 297; State Corporation Commission v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561, 569 , 54 S.Ct. 321, 324; St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 51 , 52 S., 56 S.Ct. 720, 725, 726.
[ Footnote 9 ] The rule has been most frequently applied in equity where relief by injunction was sought. Pittsburgh &c. Ry. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U.S. 32, 44 , 45 S., 19 S.Ct. 90; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 230 , 29 S.Ct. 67; Dalton adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699, 701 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 265, 269 , 270 S., 45 S.Ct. 80, 81; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160, 174 , 47 S.Ct. 553, 556; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588, 592 , 593 S., 47 S.Ct. 720, 722; Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R.R. Co. v. Risty, 276 U.S. 567, 575 , 48 S.Ct. 396, 399; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 279 U.S. 560, 563 , 49 S.Ct. 383, 384; Porter v. Investors' Syndicate, 286 U.S. 461, 468 , 471 S., 52 S. Ct. 617, 619, 620; United States v. Illinois Central Ry. Co ., 291 U.S. 457, 463 , 464 S., 54 S.Ct. 471, 473, 474; Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 163, 172 , 55 S.Ct. 7, 10; compare Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U.S. 380, 394 , 32 S.Ct. 152; Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7, 12 , 40 S.Ct. 271, 273; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel District, 262 U.S. 710, 723 , 43 S. Ct. 694, 698; McGregor v. Hogan, 263 U.S. 234, 238 , 44 S.Ct. 50, 51; White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367, 374 , 51 S.Ct. 115, 118; Petersen Baking Co. v. Bryan, 290 U.S. 570, 575 , 54 S. Ct. 277, 278; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 300, 304 , 54 S.Ct. 383, 384. But because the rule is one of judicial administration-not merely a rule governing the exercise of discretion-it is applicable to proceedings at law as well as suits in equity. Compare First National Bank of Fargo v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 U.S. 450, 455 , 44 S.Ct. 385, 387; Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337, 343 , 57 S.Ct. 816, 819.
[ Footnote 10 ] Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160 , 47 S.Ct. 553; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 279 U.S. 560 , 49 S.Ct. 383. Compare Western & Atlantic R.R. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 267 U.S. 493, 496 , 45 S.Ct. 409, 410, and casesited in note 1, supra.
[ Footnote 11 ] Such contentions were specifically rejected in Bradley Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97; Clark v. Lindemann & Hoverson Co., 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 59; Chamber of Commerce v. Federal Trade Commission, 8 Cir., 280 F. 45; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind, 66 App.D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; and Pittsburgh & W. Va. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 52 App.D.C. 40, 280 F. 1014. Compare United States v. Los Angeles & S.L.R.R. Co., 273 U.S. 299, 314 , 47 S.Ct. 413, 416; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; McChord v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co., 183 U.S. 483 , 22 S.Ct. 165; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200, 201.
The cases cited by the corporation are not opposed. Watson v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468; Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U.S. 1 , 19 S.Ct. 77; Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U.S. 65, 82 , 22 S.Ct. 585; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 248 , 38 S.Ct. 65, L.R.A.1918C, 497, Ann.Cas.1918B, 461; Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 592 , 593 S., 43 S.Ct. 658, 663, 32 A.L. R. 300; City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schnader, 291 U.S. 24, 34 , 54 S.Ct. 259, 262; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 S.Ct. 7, L.R.A.1916D, 545, Ann.Cas.1917B, 283; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 215 , 216 S., 44 S.Ct. 15, 17, 18.
[ Footnote 12 ] Meccano Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141 , 40 S.Ct. 463, 465; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 (semble), 47 S.Ct. 720; compare Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co., 262 U.S. 43, 50 , 51 S., 43 S.Ct. 466, 469; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Thompson, 281 U.S. 331, 338 , 50 S.Ct. 288, 291; Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229, 231 , 49 S.Ct. 266; Rogers v. Hill, 289 U.S. 582, 587 , 53 S.Ct. 731, 733, 88 A.L.R. 744.
[ Footnote 13 ] Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518, 525 , 17 S.Ct. 407; Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 494 , 20 S.Ct. 708; Metropolitan Water Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist., 223 U.S. 519, 523 , 32 S.Ct. 246; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Gray, 225 U.S. 205, 214 , 32 S.Ct. 620; City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U.S. 123, 136 , 33 S.Ct. 657; compare In re Tampa Suburban R.R. Co., 168 U.S. 583, 588 , 18 S.Ct. 177; Ex parte National Enameling & Stamping Co ., 201 U.S. 156, 162 , 26 S.Ct. 404; Meccano Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U.S. 136, 141 , 40 S.Ct. 463, 465.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.