Source: http://openjurist.org/print/27547
Timestamp: 2015-05-28 00:11:57
Document Index: 274157974

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1253', '§ 1253', '§ 1', '§ 151', 'art.2', '§ 207', '§ 212', '§ 1336', '§ 1336', '§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 8', '§ 7']

371 US 156 Burlington Truck Lines Inc v. United States
371 US 156 Burlington Truck Lines Inc v. United States 371 U.S. 156
83 S.Ct. 239
9 L.Ed.2d 207
BURLINGTON TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES et al. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 554, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.
Argued Oct. 15 and 16, 1962.
These are direct appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253 from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, 194 F.Supp. 31 (S.D.Ill.), which upheld an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 79 M.C.C. 599, granting a motor common carrier application. This Court noted probable jurisdiction because of important questions raised as to the relationship and interplay between remedies available under the Interstate Commerce Act and under the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.; 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., 368 U.S. 951, 82 S.Ct. 393, 7 L.Ed.2d 385.
For some time prior to May 1956, the stockholder carriers had resisted efforts by the Teamsters Union too unionize their operations. Eventually, the union sought to bring economic pressure to bear upon the stockholder carriers by a secondary boycott against their traffic through the larger, unionized, trunk-line carriers upon whom the stockholder carriers were dependent for interchanging traffic to and from points beyond Nebraska. The collective bargaining contract between the trunkline carriers and the union contained protection of rights or so-called 'hot cargo' clauses which reserved to the union and its members 'the right to refuse to handle goods from or to any firm or truck' involved in any controversy with the union and provided that it should not be a cause for discharge if an employee of the carrier refused to handle 'unfair' goods.1
The stockholder carriers thereupon organized Short Line and on June 22, 1956, Short Line filed an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission for common carrier authority to transport commodities on a regularly scheduled basis between certain Nebraska and Iowa points and points in other States. A further application for operating authority over irregular routes between Omaha and points in 32 different States was filed six months later. The applications were assigned to two different examiners, each of whom recommended that the application before him be denied. The Commission stated that 'the pertinent facts are accurately and adequately stated' in the examiners' reports and adopted the statements as its own (79 M.C.C., at 605, 608), but it concluded that the first application should be granted in part.2 The Commission found that although service in the area was satisfactory before May 1956, after that date the union-induced boycott of the stockholder carriers caused 'a substantial disruption' and 'serious inadequacies in the service available.' 79 M.C.C., at 612, 613. Accordingly, it found that grant of Short Line's application was required by 'the present and future public convenience and necessity.' Id., at 613. The Commission declared that it was not attempting to adjudicate a labor dispute or trench upon the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and it conceded its lack of jurisdiction to look beyond the duties of carriers to the public under the terms of the Interstate Commerce Act. Id., at 611. It strongly criticized the carrier appellants for yielding to union secondary boycott demands, however, and it declared that the carriers' failure to fulfill their duties as common carriers was particularly inexcusable since there had been no violence or imminent threats of danger to property or person. The Commission expressed the opinion that alleged 'apprehensions of certain of the organized carriers that any opposition to the demands of the union would have resulted in reprisals against them' were 'greatly exaggerated,' and it noted that some of the interlining carriers had successfully continued to deal with the stockholder carriers, with at least one of them encountering no difficulties with its employees when it changed its policy and carried out its statutory duties as a common carrier and interlined with the Short Line carriers.3 Id., at 612.
Finally, the Commission considered the remedy appropriate to the situation. Short Line had applied for operating authority under § 207 (certificates of public convenience and necessity). As the Commission noted, the Act provides other means of correcting deficiencies of service. Section 204(c) empowers the Commission to order carriers to comply with the transportation laws, and the Commission may act upon complaint or upon its own motion without complaint, in each case after notice and hearing, and sanctions are available to enforce its orders;4 § 212(a) empowers the Commission to suspend certificates for failure to comply with duties under the Act. The Commission proceeded to dispose of the remedy problem in the following manner:
The Commission therefore granted the application.5
The protesting carriers and the affected union sought judicial review before a three-judge District Court (28 U.S.C. §§ 1336, 1398, 2321—2325, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1336, 1398, 2321—2325), which upheld the order as within the scope of the Commission's statutory authority, based on adequate findings, and supported by substantial evidence. 194 F.Supp. 31. The court reviewed the evidence and concluded that although there was 'no doubt that their (the protesting carriers') ability to perform service prior to May 195(6) was adequate,' the record showed that union pressure made it inadequate thereafter. 194 F.Supp. at 45. The court recognized that a cease-and-desist order might have been utilized, but stated that additional certification was also a permissible remedy which was not made unavailable merely because the reason for inadequacy of service was that 'existing carriers (were) subordinating their public service obligations to their collective bargaining agreements.' Id., at 54.
In regard to the choice of remedy, the court rejected the contention that the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which added § 8(e) to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 73 Stat. 543, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. III) § 158(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(e), some four months after the entry of the order, mooted the case by making the union activities in inducing the organized carriers to boycott the Short Line stockholder carriers illegal and therefore unlikely to be resumed. The District Court expressed doubts as to whether § 8(e) 'effectively outlaws 'hot cargo' clauses,' and maintained that, even if it did, the Commission's order should still stand. Id., at 58. To the union's contention that grant of a certificate here injected the Interstate Commerce Commission into the province of the National Labor Relations Board, or at least undercut to some extent the policies of § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, the court replied that the union's failure to organize the employees of the Short Line carriers 'effectively destroyed any jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board under the Act of its creation.' Id., at 59.6 The case is now before us on direct appeals from this judgment.
We have concluded that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed and the Commission's order set aside as an improvident exercise of its discretion. The Commission found from the facts of record that the refusals to handle interchange traffic and to accept freight from certain shippers7 caused a substantial disruption in motor service and serious inadequacies in the service available, despite the efforts of some of the larger trunk-line carriers to maintain normal interline relationships. There was ample evidence to support these findings and we do not disturb them.
The difficulty with the order arises in connection with the findings and conclusions relevant to the choice of remedy. The assumption of the Commission was that the deficiencies of service made either of two remedies available—additional certification or entry of a cease-and-desist order—and that it had unlimited discretion to apply either remedy simply because either might be effective. It is unmistakably clear from the opinion of the Commission and from the fact-findings it made or adopted,8 that the disruption in service resulted solely from refusals to serve, which in turn arose from union pressure applied to obtain union objectives. It is equally clear that absent union pressure there would have been no refusals to serve and that in such normal circumstances the facilities and the services of the existing carriers were adequate.9 Moreover, the trunk-line carriers were operating below capacity,10 were in a position and anxi