Case Name: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1965-07-16
Citations: 350 F.2d 791
Docket Number: No. 19084
Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 350
Pages: 791–793

Head Matter:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 19084.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 9, 1965.
Decided July 16, 1965.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 7, 1965.
Mr. Richard H. Frank, Tampa, Fla., for petitioners.
Mr. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman,. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for respondent.
Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Burger and Tamm, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only significant question presented is whether under our recent decision in International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Inc., et al. v. N.L.R.B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. -, 351 F.2d 771, June 21, 1965, two of the petitioners can be held liable as "agents" of "labor organizations" for actions which would violate the express provisions of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act if committed by "a labor organization or its agents."
Petitioners Maintenance of Way Employees and System Division No. 87, The Order of Railway Telegraphers, represent only individuals employed by employers subject to the Railway Labor Act. Such individuals are excluded from the definition of "employees" within the National Labor Relations Act. It follows that these petitioners are not themselves "labor organizations" within that statute. Under Masters, Mates and Pilots, supra, petitioners may nevertheless be held liable if the record discloses that petitioners acted as agents for or joint venturers with unions which do qualify as "labor organizations" within the National Labor Relations Act. We think the Board was justified in finding that the petitioners were engaged in a joint venture with statutory labor organizations, and that the secondary activity was within Section 8(b) (4) though directed ultimately at a Railway Labor Act employer.
That Petitioners Telegraphers and Maintenance of Way Employees did not violate the Railway Labor Act (which does not prohibit secondary boycotts) by their actions cannot remove them from the reach of the National Labor Relations Act. Congress' failure to deal with such activity in the Railway Labor Act at its inception or by amendment in no way detracts from the broad scope of the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Petitioners subjected themselves to those provisions when they undertook to involve themselves in a common undertaking with statutory "labor organizations" in conduct violating Section 8(b) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Board's order will be enforced.