Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/655
Timestamp: 2019-06-26 21:00:21
Document Index: 362541424

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10']

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Petitioner, v. CARPET, LINOLEUM, SOFT TILE AND RESILIENT FLOOR COVERING LAYERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 419, AFL-CIO, et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
397 U.S. 655 (90 S.Ct. 1299, 25 L.Ed.2d 637)
Argued: March 3, 1970.
The petitioner, Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears), filed a charge with the NLRB Regional Director, alleging that the respondent union was engaged in unlawful secondary picketing of the petitioner's premises in violation of § 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 1 The Regional Director investigated the charge and, finding there was reasonable cause to believe it was true, issued an unfair labor practice complaint with the Board. He also petitioned a Federal District Court for injunctive relief pursuant to § 10(l) of the Act, which directs him to apply for such temporary relief 'pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to such matter.' 2
Counsel for Sears appeared at the hearing before the District Court, but Sears did not seek to intervene formally. After hearing testimony the court declined to issue an injunction, believing that Sears was not likely to prevail before the Board on its unfair labor practice charge. 3 The Regional Director did not appeal the court's decision, but Sears sought to do so. 410 F.2d 1148. The Court of Appeals dismissed Sears' appeal on the ground that under the Act only the Regional Director could appeal from the denial of a § 10(l) injunction. Thereafter the Board issued its decision and order in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding, finding that the respondent union had violated § 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, and ordering it to cease and desist from its unlawful conduct. 176 N.L.R.B. No. 120, 71 L.R.R.M. 1372 (1969).
Under these circumstances the question whether Sears could appeal the District Court's denial of an injunction has now become moot. For even if the Court of Appeals was wrong in dismissing Sears' appeal, any relief that that court might have given would now have terminated. "To adjudicate a cause which no longer exists is a proceeding which this court uniformly has declined to entertain." Local No. 86 Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, A.F.L.C.I.O. v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363, 371, 80 S.Ct. 391, 396, 4 L.Ed.2d 373, quoting from Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 217218, 43 S.Ct. 263, 264, 67 L.Ed. 620. See also Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 90 S.Ct. 200, 24 L.Ed.2d 214; Brockington v. Rhodes, 396 U.S. 41, 90 ,S.Ct. 206, 24 L.Ed.2d 209; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113.
But neither the language, the legislative history, nor the policies of the Act support this construction. For by its terms § 10(l) merely authorizes the issuance of an injunction 'pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to (the) matter.' (Emphasis added.) Once the Board has acted, it can itself seek injunctive relief from the Court of Appeals, pursuant to § 10(e) of the Act, which empowers that court to grant 'such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper.' 4 See McLeod For and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, 2 Cir., 300 F.2d 237, 241. The legislative history makes clear that the purpose of enacting § 10(l) in 1947 was simply to supplement the pre-existing § 10(e) power of the Board by authorizing injunctive relief prior to Board action. 5 It was thus relief prior to Board action that Congress was concerned with providing when it enacted § 10(l), and any injunction issued pursuant to that section terminates when the Board resolves the underlying dispute.
Where the Board ultimately finds no unfair labor practice, it would clearly be contrary to the policies of the Act to permit a district court injunction to remain in effect pending Court of Appeals review of the District Court's action. And where the Board does find an unfair labor practice, § 10(e) provides an adequate remedy should its order be disobeyed. Yet on the petitioner's reading of the Act, the District Court injunction would remain in effect until Court of Appeals review, whatever the Board did. This is not what was intended by § 10(l), and the courts that have confronted the issue have consistently so held. Carpenters' District Council of Miami, Florida and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, A.F.L.C.I.O. v. Boire, 5 Cir., 288 F.2d 454, 455; Monique, Inc. v. Boire, 5 Cir., 344 F.2d 1017, 1018; NLRB v. Nashville Bldg. & Construction Trades Council, 6 Cir., 383 F.2d 562, 564. See also this Court's disposition in Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council v. LeBaron, 342 U.S. 802, 72 S.Ct. 25, 96 L.Ed. 607. But see Houston Insulation Contractors Assn. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 339 F.2d 868.
'(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is* * * (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor oganization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 159 * * *.' ( 61 Stat. 141, 73 Stat. 542, 29 U.S.C. 158(b).)
29 U.S.C. 160(l).
LOS ANGELES HERALD-EXAMINER v. Ralph E. KENNEDY.