Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/391/418/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 20:04:26
Document Index: 241862117

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 5', '§ 8', '§ 160', '§ 5', '§ 101', '§ 101']

NLRB V. MARINE WORKERS, 391 U. S. 418 (1968) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 391 > NLRB V. MARINE WORKERS, 391 U. S. 418 (1968)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 391 U. S. 418
2. Where a union member's complaint of grievance does not concern an internal union matter, but, as in this case, touches a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
One Holder, a member of respondent unions, filed with the National Labor Relations Board an unfair labor practice charge, alleging that Local 22 had violated § 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, [Footnote 1] 61 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The important question is whether, consistent with the applicable federal statutes, a union may penalize one of its members for seeking the aid of the Board without exhausting all internal union remedies. There is a threshold question, however, concerning the adequacy of Holder's first or original charge to the Board against respondents. Holder charged discrimination practiced against him because, to use the words of the Regional Director as he paraphrased the charge in the complaint, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Holder had engaged "in certain protected activity" of an unspecified nature "with respect to his employment." It is pointed out that § 8(b)(1)(A) protects only "the exercise of rights guaranteed by section 7"; [Footnote 3] and that § 7 "says nothing about any right to file charges with the Board." 379 F.2d 706. That, however, is not the issue. The charge by Holder that he was discriminated against because he had engaged "in certain protected activity" was a sufficient way to allege an impairment of § 7 rights. "The charge is not proof. It merely sets in motion the machinery of an inquiry." NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 U. S. 9, 318 U. S. 18. Moreover, no issue was raised before the Board concerning the nature of the "protected activity." The answer of respondents, insofar as the original charge is concerned, said only that the charge made by Holder to the Board was based upon precisely the same facts as those on which his internal union charges against the president of the Local had been based. We must, therefore, assume that the initial charge was one within the ambit of § 7, and so plainly within it that no party undertook to question it.
The main issue in the case is whether Holder could be expelled for filing the charge with the Board without first having exhausted "all remedies and appeals within the Union" [Footnote 4] as provided in § 5 of Article V of the constitution, already quoted. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Court of Appeals concluded that, while this proviso would not permit a union to expel a member because he filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union, it permits a rule which gives the union "a fair opportunity to correct its own wrong before the injured member should have recourse to the Board." 379 F.2d 707.
We held in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, that § 8(b)(1)(A) does not prevent a union from imposing fines on members who cross a picket line created to implement an authorized strike. The strike, we said, "is the ultimate weapon in labor's arsenal for achieving agreement upon its terms" and the power to fine or expel a strike-breaker "is essential if the union is to be an effective bargaining agent.'" Id. at 388 U. S. 181. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 10(b) of the Act, 61 Stat. 146, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), forbids issuance of a complaint based on conduct occurring more than six months prior to filing of the charge -- a provision promoting promptness. A proceeding by the Board is not to adjudicate private rights, but to effectuate a public policy. The Board cannot initiate its own proceedings; implementation of the Act is dependent "upon the initiative of individual persons." Nash v. Florida Industrial Comm'n, 389 U. S. 235, 389 U. S. 238. The policy of keeping people "completely free from coercion," ibid., against making complaints to the Board is therefore important in the functioning of the Act as an organic whole. A restriction such as we find in § 5 of Article V of the International's constitution is contrary to that policy, as it is applied here. A healthy interplay of the forces governed and protected by the Act means that there should be as great a freedom to ask the Board for relief as there is to petition any other department of government for a redress of grievances. [Footnote 6] Any coercion used to discourage, retard, or defeat that access is beyond the legitimate interests of a labor organization. That was the philosophy of the Board in the Skura case, Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers, 148 N.L.R.B. 679, and we agree that the overriding public interest makes unimpeded access to the Board the only healthy alternative, except and unless plainly internal affairs of the union are involved. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the present case, a whole complex of public policy issues was raised by Holder's original charge. It implicated not only the union, but the employer. The employer might also have been made a party and comprehensive and coordinated remedies provided. Those issues cannot be fully explored in an internal union proceeding. There cannot be any justification to make the public processes wait until the union member exhausts internal procedures plainly inadequate to deal with all phases of the complex problem concerning employer, union, and employee member. If the member becomes exhausted, instead of the remedies, the issues of public policy are never reached, and an airing of the grievance never had. The Court of Appeals recognized that this might be the consequence, and said that resort to an intra-union remedy would not be required if it "would impose unreasonable delay or hardship upon the complainant." 379 F.2d 707.
The Court of Appeals found support for its contrary position in § 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
We conclude that "may be required" is not a grant of authority to unions more firmly to police their members, but a statement of policy that the public tribunals whose aid is invoked may in their discretion stay their hands for four months while the aggrieved person seeks relief within the union. We read it, in other words, as installing in this labor field a regime comparable to that which prevails in other areas of law before the federal courts, which often stay their hands while a litigant seeks administrative relief before the appropriate agency. [Footnote 8] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I am persuaded by the legislative history, summarized in part by the Court, that the proviso to § 101(a)(4) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary