Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98556/carpenters-union-vs-labor-board
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 19:13:04
Document Index: 219534932

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 151', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 10', 'art.\n2', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 160', '§ 158', '§ 10']

Carpenters Union Vs Labor Board - Citation 98556 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Carpenters Union Vs. Labor Board - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/98556
Case Number 341 U.S. 707
Appellant Carpenters Union
carpenters union v. labor board - 341 u.s. 707 (1951) u.s. supreme court carpenters union v. labor board, 341 u.s. 707 (1951) carpenters union v. labor board no. 85 argued february 26, 1951 decided june 4, 1951 341 u.s. 707 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus on the day before the effective date of the labor management relations act, 1947, amending the national labor relations act, a union ordered its members, who were working on a dwelling renovation project, to strike. they did so, and the strike continued after the effective date of the amendment. one of the objects was to force the owner of the dwelling to cancel a contract for the installation of wall and floor.....
Carpenters Union v. Labor Board - 341 U.S. 707 (1951)
U.S. Supreme Court Carpenters Union v. Labor Board, 341 U.S. 707 (1951)
Held: its finding and order are sustained. Pp. 341 U. S. 708 -715.
1. On the record in this case, the actions complained of had sufficient effect on interstate commerce to sustain the Board's jurisdiction. P. 341 U. S. 712 .
2. Section 8(c) is not applicable. Pp. 341 U. S. 712 -713.
3. It is enough that one of the objects of the action complained of was to force the owner of the dwelling to cancel the merchant's contract, and it does not immunize such action from § 8(b)(4)(A) to show that another object was to enforce a rule of the union that its members should not work on a project on which nonunion men were employed. P. 341 U. S. 713 .
4. It is immaterial that the strike had its origin before the effective date of the amended Act, since it was prolonged after the effective date, for the same objective. Pp. 341 U. S. 713 -714.
5. The case has not been rendered moot by the completion of the renovation project. P. 341 U. S. 715 .
Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and ordered them to cease and desist. 80 N.L.R.B. 533. The Court of Appeals ordered enforcement. 181 F.2d 126. This Court granted certiorari. 340 U.S. 902. Affirmed, p. 341 U. S. 715 .
This is a companion case to No. 393, Labor Board v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council (the Denver case), ante, p. 341 U. S. 675 , and No. 108, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Labor Board (the Greenwich case), ante, p. 341 U. S. 694 .
The principal question is whether, under the following circumstances, a union engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of § 8(b)(4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. § 151, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. [ Footnote 1 ] On the day before the effective date of that amendment, the union ordered its members, who were working on a dwelling renovation project, to engage in a strike where an object thereof was to force the owner of the dwelling to cancel a contract for the installation of wall and floor coverings, and then for several days, on and
consent of petitioners. On August 22, 1947, § 8(b)(4)(A) took effect. [ Footnote 2 ]
Watson's promptly filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board based upon the continuance of the above strike by petitioners on and after August 22. The Regional Director issued a complaint charging the union and Henderson with engaging in an unfair labor practice as defined in § 8(b)(4)(A). [ Footnote 3 ] Pursuant to § 10( l ), [ Footnote 4 ] the Regional Director petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee for injunctive relief. This relief was denied on the ground that the conduct complained of took place before August 22 and was at that time lawful. Styles v. Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 74 F.Supp. 499.
remote and insubstantial and the controversy was so local in character that it was undesirable for the Board to exercise federal power in relation to it. Id. at 540. On a review under § 10(e), [ Footnote 5 ] the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordered enforcement of the order. 181 F.2d 126. We granted certiorari. 340 U.S. 902. See Labor Board v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, ante, p. 341 U. S. 682 , 341 U. S. 683 .
1. Petitioners contest the jurisdiction of the Board on the ground of the insufficiency of the effect of the actions complained of upon interstate commerce. We conclude that the findings in the intermediate report, adopted by the Board and accepted by the court below, are sufficient to sustain the Board's jurisdiction. Denver case, ante at p. 341 U. S. 683 -687. From March to September, 1947, Watson's purchased about $93,000 worth of goods. Thirty-three percent was shipped to it in interstate business. Thirty percent more had been manufactured outside of Tennessee. Watson's sales and installation jobs came to about $100,000, of which eight percent represented sales and installations outside of the State. The Board also referred to the fact that Watson's operated a system of 26 or 27 retail stores in seven different states, of which the Chattanooga store apparently was an integral part.
2. The complaint was not against the picketing at Watson's store from March to August 28, 1947. See Labor Board v. International Rice Milling Co., ante, p. 341 U. S. 665 . The complaint was directed against petitioners' extension of their activities to the Stanley project by there ordering a strike, or concerted cessation of work, on the part of Stanley's union carpenters [ Footnote 6 ] with an object of forcing Stanley to cancel his installation contract with Watson's.
Section 8(c) [ Footnote 7 ] is not applicable. This strike was ordered by Henderson in person. The union and he both engaged in and ordered the strike. The carpenters, as individual employees, are not charged with an unfair labor practice. The charge is confined to the actions of the labor organization and its agent in engaging in, ordering, and continuing a strike for a proscribed object after Congress had made such conduct an unfair labor practice.
3. As determined in the Denver case, it is enough that one of the objects of the action complained of was to force Stanley to cancel Watson's contract. It does not immunize such action from § 8(b)(4)(A) to show that it also had as an object the enforcement of a rule of the union that its members should not work on a project on which nonunion men were employed. [ Footnote 8 ] The statute did not require the individual carpenters to remain on this job. It did, however, make it an unfair labor practice for the union or its agent to engage in a strike, as they did here, when an object of doing so was to force the project owner to cancel his installation contract with Watson's.
petitioners contend that their actions all took place before August 22, and that they did nothing on or after that date which is proscribed by § 8(b)(4)(A). [ Footnote 9 ] The answer turns on what actually took place on and after August 22. As to that, the Board concluded:
80 N.L.R.B. at 537-538. [ Footnote 10 ]
We agree with the court below in sustaining that conclusion. [ Footnote 11 ]
61 Stat. 149-150, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. III) § 160( l ). For text, see Labor Board v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, ante, p. 675, note 10
61 Stat. 142, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. III) § 158(c). For text, see the Denver case, ante, p. 341 U. S. 690 , note 20.
In the proceedings for an injunction under § 10( l ), the District Court so held. Its decision, however, was based upon the affidavits before it, rather than upon the record before the Board, and its conclusion did not bind the Board in the proceeding on the merits. 74 F.Supp. 499, and see Labor Board v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, ante, pp. 341 U. S. 681 -683.