Document: 370 U.S. 173 82 S.Ct. 1237 8 L.Ed.2d 418 MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners,v.INTERLAKE STEAMSHIP COMPANY al. No. 166. Argued April 16, 1962. Decided June 11, Mr. Lee Pressman, New York City, for petitioners. Raymond T. Jackson, Cleveland, Ohio, respondents. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 3 775, this Court held that proper administration federal labor law requires state courts to relinquish jurisdiction not only over those controversies actually found be within National Labor Relations Board, but also litigation arising from activities which might arguably subject agency's cognizance. Only such a rule, held, will preserve Board its congressionally delegated function deciding what is and domain.1 present case Supreme Minnesota petitioners, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA) Local 101, were 'labor organizations' meaning § 8(b) Management Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(b), U.S.C.A. therefore unfair practice provisions section statute. Accordingly, court trial had erred in assuming dispute involving MEBA permanently enjoining them picketing violation law. 260 Minn. 1, 108 N.W.2d 627. We granted certiorari, 368 811, 44, 7 20, consider an asserted conflict between court's decision our holding Garmon case. 2 The essential facts gave rise controversy are dispute. respondents owned operated fleet bulk cargo vessels on Great Lakes. 101 unions represented marine engineers employed Lakes elsewhere.2 by or any other union. On November 1959, respondents' vessel, Samuel Mather, arrived at dock Carnegie Dock Fuel Company Duluth, Minnesota. following morning several members began picket entrance road dock. They carried signs read: 'Pickands Mather Unfair Organized Labor. This Dispute Involves P—M. M.E.B.A. Loc. AFL—CIO.' 'M.E.B.A. 101. AFL—CIO. Request P—M Join with Better Working Conditions. P—M.' When pickets appeared, employees refused continue unloading Mather. As result ship was forced remain dock, another steamers, Pickands, compelled ride anchor outside harbor number days, because could accommodate one vessel time. 4 Upon learning line, filed complaint charging union violations alleged, among things, petitioners induced Carnegie's refuse perform services, thus caused breach contract motion dismiss complaint, claiming thus, under doctrine, beyond cognizance.3 Evidence taken concerning nature effect picketing, employment status engineers, and, limited extent, characteristics concluded jurisdiction, finding law, it issued temporary injunction prohibiting near site where loading unloading, inducing firms services respondents, interfering specified ways operations. later made permanent basis same record, judgment affirmed review 5 dealt rules conduct—whether certain protected prohibited Act. has hardly been disputed, nor be, petitioners' conduct kind 8(b)(4)(A) Act primary if contemplation generally.4 determined, however, whom sought enlist 'supervisors,' consequently neither organization,' nothing doctrine precluded jurisdiction. 6 It contention issue determined whether correctly decided their organization' status, free finally decide all. contend principles confined evidence sufficient show either 8(b). agree, hold deprive controversy. see no reason assume task interpreting applying statutory definition does call adjudicatory expertise must bring bear when determines applicability §§ substantive conduct. Indeed, analysis problem makes clear process defining term may often require full range competence. defined 2(5) says: 9 'The means organization kind, agency employee representation committee plan, participate exists purpose, whole part, dealing employers grievances, disputes, wages, rates pay, hours employment, conditions work.' 152(5), 152(5). 10 part requirement 'employees participate' organization. 2(3) '(t)he 'employee' * shall include individual as supervisor *.' 152(3), 152(3).5 'Supervisor' turn 2(11) mean: 11 '* having authority, interest employer, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, discipline employees, responsibly direct them, adjust effectively recommend action, connection foregoing exercise authority merely routine clerical nature, use independent judgment.' 152(11), 152(11). 12 'supervisor' considerable before NLRB courts.6 immediately apparent, moreover, phrase 'organization far self-explanatory. Several recurring questions stem fact national even local represent both 'employees' 'supervisors.'7 For example, participation defendant sufficient, involved immediate dispute?8 What percentage degree relevant unit required?9 If open solicits membership, there showing members? And, itself become agent some is?10 13 considerations answering these largely most wisely entrusted initially charged day-to-day whole. appears sections Section 8(a)(2), forbids 'dominate interfere formation contribute financial support 158(a)(2), 158(a)(2). 8(a)(3) discriminatory conduct, 'to encourage discourage membership 158(a)(3), 158(a)(3). 9(c), unreviewable area elections,11 refers repeatedly organizations.' policy underlying relationship particular definitional approach various sections, obviously into account statute operate coherent whole.12 A centralized working out consistent many separate interrelated occupations single industry.13 Moreover, should first instance spectrum possible approaches question, ranging broad terms entire narrow case-by-case consideration issue. can knowledgeably weigh choice upon certainty predictability management relations, assess importance simple administrative convenience area.14 14 reasons we conclude determining context doubtful begin workable way assure concede purposes whenever reasonably arguable effect. Such courts. 15 There persuasive introduced all supervisors.15 shown steadfastly maintained proceedings Act.16 However, record two recent decisions, guilty engaging activity similar case,17 branch purpose 9(c) election.18 Board's order enforced Appeals Second Circuit January 13, 1960, during pendency court.19 attention expressly called theory, subsequently adopted Circuit, union, known few 'employees,' union's constitution making available previous indicative render organization.' See 121 N.L.R.B., 209—210; 274 F.2d, 174—175. Three additional District decisions reasonable cause believe issuance litigation, although specifically brought attention.20 16 case, therefore, simply possibility it, depended, i.e., absence position authoritatively rejected courts,21 abandoned itself, duty defer determination.22 17 need protecting exclusivity greatest precise through procedures originating Board. While last word, assuredly first. addition, undertaken issue, relitigation creates more than theoretical danger actual regulation controversy.23 'Our concern' here, U.S., 246, S.Ct., 780, 'is delimiting areas left unhampered.' 18 Reversed. 19 FRANKFURTER took 20 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 21 I agree announced Court, disagree reached contains affidavit President (MEBA), states including supervisory functions.1 An officer testified: 22 'Local comprised men who licensed United States Coast Guard, engineering duties they Guard.' 23 engineer someone him. That grounded historic distinction unlicensed personnel record.2 masters mates would plainly supervisors qualified ordinary seamen. rare instances tug, employee, directly contrary president. 24 said 'does show' 'admits non-supervisory event composed primarily almost exclusively supervisors.' challenged here. Petitioners, placing hopes words 'primarily supervisors,' say contended 25 defines 'in 'of grievances,' 26 word redefined Congress3 Packard Motor Car Co. 330 485, 67 789, 91 L.Ed. 1040, so exclude 'any supervisor.' 2(3). And 14(a) provides 'Nothing herein prohibit becoming remaining member organization, employer deem individuals local, relating collective bargaining.' shred Since not, entitled protections Federal power make. apparently claims advantage do protests against being labeled serves end.4 27 desires protection required come forth are. showing, disturb rulings courts, fully justified picketing. indeed conceded counsel improve conditions' 'licensed engineers,' undisclosed now intimated have 28 purview 8(b)(2) 8(b)(4), practices, alleged place practices. 14, quoted above, returned enjoyed prior A. H. Bull S.S. Eng. B. Ass'n, Cir., 250 F.2d 332. matters times Act.5 Apparently employee.6 So operation doing work nonsupervisory employees. Whether change week-to-week presented for, list, claim shelter 'At regulated governed was, perhaps, sections. But tribunals adjudicate issues. determinations scope Court's cannot State's too yield exclusive competence Board.' 244—245, 779. shows 'local' conventional sense term. offices throughout area, Brooklyn, Francisco, Houston, places, 'approximately 35 40 locals 101; very small, large.' Potential claimed preemption note 4, infra. 12, day began, provided follows: 'It agents— '(4) engage in, induce strike concerted refusal course use, manufacture, process, transport, otherwise handle goods, articles, materials, commodities object thereof is: (A) forcing requiring self-employed person join cease using, selling, handling, transporting, products producer, processor, manufacturer, business 158(b)(4)(A), 158(b)(4)(A). Shortly thereafter amendments Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure became effective, 8(b)(4)(B), (Supp. II) 158(b)(4)(B), 158(b)(4)(B). here-pertinent language amended remained virtually same. express ultimate provisions. Compare Sailors' Union Pacific (Moore Dry Co.), 92 N.L.R.B. 547, Maritime (Standard Oil 208, enforced, 167. generally, 761, Intern. Electrical, etc., Workers 366 667, 81 1285, 61 592. Congress forego relations product experience 1935. assumption 1935 approved 1040. passed 1947 shortly thereafter, explicitly stating compulsion treat bargaining organizational activity. S.Rep. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 3—5, 28; H.R.Rep. 245, 13—17. Compare, e.g., Globe Steamship (Great Brotherhood), 85 475, 209—210, Graham Transp. (Brotherhood Engineers), 124 960. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 169 331; Edward G. Budd 571; Ohio Power 176 385, A.L.R.2d 243; Quincy Steel Casting 200 293. Summarizing First recently said, gradations 'responsibly direct' others general manager top executive 'straw boss' infinite subtle necessity large measure informed discretion determine practical matter fall 'supervisor." Swift 292 561, 563. supra, n. 6; International Brotherhood Teamsters (Di Giorgio Wine 87 720, Di Fruit Corp. 89 U.S.App.D.C. 155, 191 642, 377. See, Ass'n 167, 173; Organization Masters, Mates Pilots (Chicago Calumet Stevedoring 125 113, 131—132. 48 L.R.R.M. 2624 (C.A.D.C.Cir.1960). 721, 743, 210. Leedom Kyne, 358 184, 180, Cf. 741. 478, 480. 175, said: 'We earnestly suggest unions, whose concern every ocean inland port States, deserves thorough treatment investigation course, performed Once inquiry MMP organizations, rely unless change.' relied, 1949 6, vessels, 'supervisors' election petition. Respondents affidavit, proceeding, supervisors. dissenting opinion, post, p. 185. But, pointed out, then, continued view, despite assertions. did attempt introduce specific prove seem indicate ultimately prefer classified ambit assertion time action pending, create 8. entirely inconsistent affirmatively abandon wished maintain NLRB. equally give evidentiary weight affidavits dredged up self-characterizing claims. 4. 6. official testified examination 'was merged local' May 29, 1959. Schauffler D.C., 180 F.Supp. 932; Penello Seafarers' Union, 164 635 (D.C.E.D.Va., 1957); Douds 148 953. noted 301 Engineers' distinguished 8(b), 8, 294 385. Subsequent Columbia ordered take reconsider determination maritime 9. At serve cast doubt validity determination. much substantial, decline To distinguish ground each jobs unlike do, teaches. group then-pending currently litigated reviewing Far accepted, view least twice rejected. 173, enforcing 208; 131—132, remanded reconsideration grounds, Illustrative granting application Regional Director Ass'n. 20. cases cited, supra. 'I categorically comprise MEBA, without exception work, interests fine, reward engine department, supervision responsibility department grievances action. furtherance duties, just described judgment. Every performs described. type assumes takes members, precisely description, insofar responsibilities concerned.' findings state: 'All assistant Interlake stand watches charge responsible condition vessel's propulsion mechanism direct, control supervise firemen, oilers coal passers watch; fire, transfer persons make effective tenure people them; supervision; discretion; 23; 28. below contentions 170 ('MEBA says supervisors') Ben. 932, 935 (where argued Act). Mates, America 116 1787, admitted turned procedural point mentioned Appeals: 'MEBA know certainly find out. properly thought placed inference nonsupervisors MMP, sufficed rebutted convincing offered organizations meet standards laid down Universal Camera 1951, 340 474, 71 456, 95 456.' 175. 172—173: three Franklin D. Roosevelt, chief relief engineer, supervisors; argument third considered since he exercised about. 1952, Sandra Marie supervise. General Foods Corporation, 110 1088 (1954). disputed this, well ships normally supervise.'

Category: 9