Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/645/
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 13:29:29
Document Index: 171163724

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

Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB :: 456 U.S. 645 (1982) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB 456 U.S. 645 (1982)
U.S. Supreme CourtWoelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (1982)Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations BoardNo. 80-1798Argued March 3, 1982Decided May 24, 1982*456 U.S. 645Syllabus
When Woelke's construction sites were picketed in support of the union's demand for the subcontracting clause, Woelke filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, asserting that subcontracting clauses are sheltered by § 8(e)'s construction industry proviso only if they are limited in application to particular jobsites at which both union and nonunion workers are employed. Woelke argued that, because the clause sought by the union violated § 8(e), the picketing violated § 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act, which prohibits coercing an employer "to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by" § 8(e). The Board held that subcontracting clauses are lawful whenever they are sought or negotiated in the context of collective bargaining relationships, and that therefore picketing to obtain such a clause was permitted under § 8(b)(4)(A). In Nos. 80-1808 and 81-91, a labor dispute resulted in unfair labor practice charges' being filed against respondent union by a member (petitioner in No. 80-1808) of an association of construction industry Page 456 U. S. 646 employers (petitioner in No. 81-91), challenging the validity under § 8(e) of a subcontracting clause which was substantially similar to the clause involved in No. 80-1798, and which was included in a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the association. The Board held that such clause was protected by the construction industry proviso. The Court of Appeals consolidated the petitioners' requests for review of the Board's orders and ultimately decided to enforce the orders, holding that union signatory subcontracting clauses are protected so long as they are negotiated in the context of a collective bargaining relationship, and that picketing may be used to obtain such a clause.
2. The Court of Appeals was without jurisdiction to decide that unions do not violate § 8(b)(4)(A) when they picket to obtain a subcontracting clause sheltered by the construction industry proviso. Neither Woelke nor the Board's General Counsel raised that issue during the proceedings before the Board in No. 80-1798, and thus judicial review is barred by § 10(e) of the Act, which provides that "[n]o objection that has not been Page 456 U. S. 647 urged before the Board . . . shall be considered by the court." The § 10(e) bar applies even though the Board held that the picketing was not banned by § 8(b)(4)(A). Woelke's failure to object to the Board's decision in a petition for reconsideration or rehearing prevents consideration of the question by the courts. Pp. 456 U. S. 665-666.