Document: 336 U.S. 18 69 S.Ct. 379 93 L.Ed. 463 LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORPORATIONv.WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B—953, A.F. L v. WISCONSIN Nos. 38, 39. Argued Nov. 18, 19, 1948. Decided Jan. 17, 1949. Appeals from the Supreme Court of State Wisconsin. Mr. Thomas H. S. Kemp, La Crosse, Wis., for appellant LaCrosse Telephone Corporation. Louis Sherman, Washington, D.C., International Brotherhood Electrical Workers, Local L. Beatrice Lampert, Madison, appellees. [Argument Counsel page 19 intentionally omitted] Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases, here on appeal Wisconsin Court, 28 U.S.C. § 344(a), U.S.C.A. 344(a)* 43 Stat. 937, 45 54, present question whether a certification union by Employment Relations Board, Wis.Stats.1947, ch. 111, as collective bargaining representative employees company, conflicts with National Labor Act, 49 449, 29 151 et seq., seq. 2 Prior to 1945 company recognized its plant and traffic department employees. The entered into agreement which terms was continue year unless terminated either party specified notice. At time when certain provisions that were being renegotiated rival union, Guild, filed petition Board asking it certify these Before acted, Guild withdrew seeking same relief. 3 held hearing directed separate elections be among in plant, traffic, office departments determine they desired grouped single unit or departmental units what representative, if any, elect. After election certified had elected combine chosen their constitute themselves not have any representative. 4 Each brought an action courts set aside. Circuit relying Bethlehem Steel Co. New York 330 767, 67 1026, 91 1234, without jurisdiction issue certification. reversed. 251 Wis. 583, 30 N.W.2d 241. 5 First. We are met at outset contention has been sustained is 'final judgment' within meaning 237(a) Judicial Code, 344, 344. argument under law no more than report results investigation made known parties such use may desire, nothing can done state agency enforce observance certification, cannot required bargain until unfair practice charge lodged against it, p oceeding all issues involved proceeding relitigated. If correct, case course ripe intervention federal judicial power. See Rochester Corp. United States, 307 125, 130, 131, 59 754, 757, 83 1147, cases cited. 6 But shown gives slight force statute provides shall exclusive one purposes bargaining. 111.05(1). Provision board take secret ballot thereof, whenever arises concerning representation unit. 111.05(3). And contains following direction: 'The board's conclusive findings included therein reviewed manner provided subsection (8) section 111.07 review orders board.'1 highest court While irrevocable time,2 fixes status sanction. For labor employer refuse majority employees.3 111.06(d). since 111.05(3) makes subject review, 'conclusive therein', would seem collaterally attacked heard de novo. pointed authority effect be. 7 On this phase we are, indeed, referred only Retail & Wholesale Department Store Employees America, 174 (C.I.O.) 245 636, 15 844. merely order referendum 'all union' reviewable. It did deal certificate fact cases. true below, said 'mere fact-finding procedure' ascertaining facts, ordering election, certifying result 'constitutes ministerial capacity.' 592, 245. comment lack discretion left Board. relevance law. 8 seems readier some reexamine ground lost support majority,4 nevertheless appears o binding upon so long stands.5 9 assumed Allegheny Ludlum Kelley, state, final judgment, although itself command but like enforcible another proceeding.6 10 think correct view. Wisconsin's form immaterial. American Federation 308 401, 408, 60 300, 303, 84 347. abstract determination status. Nor interim adjudication uncompleted administrative process. established legal rights relationships. told employer, whom he could negotiate risk sanctions. character therefore make reviewable appropriate standards exercise 11 Second. concluded undertook That view urged us coming statute. In supra, 776, 1031, rejected argument, saying: 12 argues rule enable act acted case. do test supremacy permissible here.' went point out industry those particular employers engaged asserted control relations general. Both statutes laid hold relationship different regulation. Since regulation thought situation too fraught potential conflict permit intrusion agency, even though Nationa before us. 13 Those considerations This concededly interstate commerce; over consistenly exercised jurisdiction.7 Act craft, division, elect group 111.02(6). leaves matter board.8 When circumstances puts imprimatur agent employees, freezes pattern fluid.9 practical measure between scheme found collision formal two boards issue. know also disposes entered. Disposition controversies distinguished basis will often reflect attitudes reduced specific A conflicting theory readily disruptive head-on collision. very real potentials lead allow supremacy10 yet applied way employer. problem employee sensitive delicate industrial relations. uncertainty master how remain peace various factions actual competition supremacy. satisfied wisdom policy underlying adhere it. 14 reached changed Management 1947, 61 136, U.S.C.Supp. I, 141 grants conditions cede agency.11 does appear there cession proceedings.12 Reversed. 16 RUTLEDGE, having joined dissent see p. 777, 1032, acquiesces Court's judgment * 1948 1257. extends decisions affecting rights, duties, privileges affirmative negative form, 227.15, allowed person aggrieved directly affected decision. 227.16. Section 111.05(4) prevent holding employes, sufficient reason therefor exists.' 111.06(d) where files requesting 'he deemed refused thereof him board.' already made, recertification demanded. 111.05(3), 'conclusive.' 111.05(4), note 2; Rydahl's Launderers Cleaners, E.R.B. Decision No. 677 (1944); UAW-CIO Four Wheel Drive Auto Co., 687 cf. AUA Garton Toy 1238 (1947); Killingsworth, 161—62 (1948). re Carpenters Joiners, L.R.R.M. 894 (Wis. County Cir. Ct., 1938); Charles Abresch, 639 744, Hall Garage Corp., 2419 1946). suit declaratory restrain determining plaintiff's supervisory collectively plaintiff. Under results. McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 31, Law, 705. Certification itself, instant case, impose penalty. Suit accomplish result. Ibid. 706. Refusal practice. 704(6). Even law, conclusive, considered decision approving conduct our consideration. Elyria 58 N.L.R.B. 402; Newark 1408; Peoples 540; Ohio Service 72 488. operates telephone business Crosse County, subsidiary Central whose subsidiaries operate businesses many states. concession commerce based calls handles. decide each whether, insure full benefit right self-organization bargaining, otherwise effectuate policies unit, craft subdivision thereof.' Moreover, excludes definition working capacity. 111.02(3). They were, however, protection then written. Packard Motor 485, 789, 1040. strikers others who work periods. latter exceptions likewise main square contained 2(3) act. U.S.Const. Art. VI. 10(a) amended, now part: 'the empowered Territory (other mining, manufacturing, communications, transportation except predominantly local character) involve disputes commerce, provision Territorial applicable inconsistent corresponding received construction therewith.' August 27, 1948, restricted implementation 14(b) 22 L.R.R. 268.

Category: 9