Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/373/701/case.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 13:49:36
Document Index: 637809297

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

IRON WORKERS V. PERKO, 373 U. S. 701 - Volume 373 - 1963 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 373 > IRON WORKERS V. PERKO, 373 U. S. 701 (1963) > Full Text
IRON WORKERS V. PERKO, 373 U. S. 701 (1963)
be that a union's insistence on discharge of a supervisor for failure to comply with union rules would violate § 8(b)(1)(A) by tending to coerce nonsupervisory employees into observing those rules, and, if a union forces an employer to discharge a supervisor, such conduct might well violate § 8(b)(1)(B) because it coerces the "employer in the selection of his representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances." Pp. 373 U. S. 707-708.
At trial, a verdict was directed for petitioners, but this ruling was reversed on appeal, and a second trial was held. The evidence at this trial showed that Perko had generally worked for the company as a "foreman" or "superintendent;" [Footnote 1] that, in December, 1953, he was working as
a superintendent on a particular project; that, in that capacity, he gave instructions to boilermakers with respect to performance of certain phases of the work that the iron workers claimed; and that, following this incident, Perko was charged by members of petitioner local with assisting boilermakers in violation of the union's rule, [Footnote 2] and was found guilty, fined and suspended from membership. The fine, however, was later suspended, and Perko was placed on probation, being permitted to resume payment of dues.
Respondent contends, however, that, in any event, the exercise of state jurisdiction is not precluded, because the matter is clearly not subject to the Labor Board's cognizance. [Footnote 3] The basis of this contention is respondent's claim that he was a job superintendent, and thus a "supervisor" within the meaning of the Act, [Footnote 4] at the time of the alleged tort, and that he was thus excluded from the scope, operation, and protection of federal law. There are, we
believe, two independent and conclusive answers to this argument, both of which establish that this matter falls squarely within the preemption principles declared in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236.
It is evident that this case presents difficult problems of definition of status, problems which we have held are precisely "of a kind most wisely entrusted initially to the agency charged with the day-to-day administration of the Act as a whole." Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn. v. Interlake Steamship Co., 370 U. S. 173, 370 U. S. 180. It is entirely possible that the Board might conclude that a foreman under the facts of this case is an employee, and that a man whose status fluctuates, as Perko's seemingly did, is entitled to claim the protection afforded employees under the Act. Given such a conclusion, Perko's complaint -- that the petitioners caused his discharge and prevented his subsequent employment as a foreman as well as a superintendent -- falls within the ambit of the unfair labor practices prohibited by §§ 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2)
of the Act. [Footnote 5] And since petitioners' actions apparently resulted from Perko's violation of a union rule, there is a reasonable likelihood that on these premises the Board would have found such unfair labor practices to have been committed. See the discussion in the Borden case, ante, pp. 373 U. S. 694-695.
Second, even if it be assumed that Perko was not an employee but was solely a supervisor, there is a sufficient probability that the matter would still have been cognizable by the Board so as to compel the relinquishment of state jurisdiction. It has been held that discharge of a supervisor for failure effectively to coerce employees into renouncing their union affiliation constitutes a violation of § 8(a)(1) because such a discharge would reasonably cause nonsupervisory employees to fear that they might meet the same fate if they adhered to the union; and, in such instances, the Board has been sustained in ordering reinstatement of the supervisor with back pay. National Labor Relations Board v. Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 213 F.2d 209; cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Better Monkey Grip Co., 243 F.2d 836. So here, it may well be that a union's insistence on discharge of a supervisor for failure to comply with union rules would violate § 8(b)(1)(A) because it would inevitably tend to coerce nonsupervisory employees into observing those rules. If so, it would surely be within the Board's power under § 10(c) to order the union to reimburse the supervisor for lost wages.
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: IRON WORKERS V. PERKO, 373 U. S. 701 (1963)