Document: 425 U.S. 800 96 S.Ct. 1842 48 L.Ed.2d 382 SOUTH PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,v.LOCAL NO. 627, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, et al. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. LOCAL Nos. 75-1097, 75-1243. May 24, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent Union filed a complaint in 1972 with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that South Prairie Construction Co. (South Prairie) and Peter Kiewit Sons' (Kiewit) had violated §§ 8(a)(5) (1) of Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) (1), by their continuing refusal to apply Prairie's employees collective-bargaining agreement effect between Kiewit. The first asserted since are wholly owned subsidiaries Sons', Inc. (PKS), engage highway construction Oklahoma, they constituted single "employer" within Act for purposes applying Union-Kiewit agreement. That being case, contended, was obligated recognize representative bargaining unit drawn include employees.1 Disagreeing Administrative Law Judge on part Union's claim, concluded were fact separate employers, dismissed complaint. 2 On petition review, Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit canvassed facts record. It discussed, Inter alia, manner which Kiewit, Prairie, PKS functioned entities; PKS' decision activate its nonunion subsidiary, State where historically been only union contractor among latter's Oklahoma competitors; two firms' competitive bidding patterns jobs after activated do business there.2 3 Stating it criteria recognized this Radio Television Broadcast Technicians Local 1264 Service, 380 255, 85 876, 13 789 (1965),3 disagreed decided presented "employer." reasoned addition "presence very substantial qualitative degree centralized control labor relations," "evidence interrelation operations common management one we satisfied would not be found arm's length relationship existing unintegrated companies". 171 U.S.App.D.C. 102, 108, 109, 518 F.2d 1040, 1046, 1047 (1975). Board's finding contrary was, therefore, view "not warranted record." Id., at F.2d, 1047. 4 Having set aside portion determination, however, went reach decide second question passed upon Board. court appropriate under § 9 Act4 collective bargaining. basis conclusion, these firms committed an unfair practice refusing "to 627 or extend terms employees." 112, 1050. case remanded "issuance enforcement order against . Prairie." Ibid. 5 Petitioners petitions here contest action setting determination question. But principal contention is invaded statutory province when proceeded "unit" instance, instead remanding so could make initial determination. While refrain from disturbing holding "employer," see NLRB Pittsburgh S. Co., [340 498, 71 453, 95 L.Ed. 479 (1951),]5 agree petitioners' contention. 6 evidently necessarily constitute 9. while opinion referred cases area included "the each unit," 206 N.L.R.B. 562, 563 (1973), brief discussion context what obviously considered dispositive issue, namely, whether employers. We think fair reading discloses did address any assumption, Arguendo, might have wrong threshold issue.6 7 Section 9(b) 159(b), directs 8 "decide whether, assure fullest freedom exercising rights guaranteed shall employer unit, craft plant subdivision thereof ." hold especially industry affiliated "does establish employerwide appropriate, factors relevant identifying breadth employer's operation conclusively determinative scope unit." Central New Mexico Chapter, Electrical Contractors Assn., Inc., 152 1604, 1608 (1965). See also B & Industries, 162 832 (1967). Cf. Gerace Const., 193 645 (1971).7 10 question, supra, distinguishable because there engaged different types contracting. thought critical conclusion same "community interest" unit. Whether correct reasoning, take itself issue "incompatible orderly function process judicial review." Metropolitan Ins. 438, 444, 1061, 1064, 951, 955 Since selection lies largely discretion Board, whose decision, "if final, rarely disturbed," Packard Motor NLRB, 330 485, 491, 67 789, 793, 91 1050 (1947), ended error "laid bare." FPC Idaho Power 344 17, 20, 73 85, 86, 97 15, 20 (1952). 11 As stated Food Store Employees Union, 347, 417 1, 9, 94 2074, 2079, 40 612, 618 (1974): 12 "It guiding principle administrative law, long Court, 'an imbedded legal open review does impliedly foreclose agency, has corrected enforcing legislative policy charge.' FCC Pottsville Broadcasting 309 134, 145, 60 437, 84 656 (1940)." In foreclosing opportunity determine give "due observance (to) distribution authority made Congress power regulate commerce reviewing conferred courts Article III Constitution." 141, 440, 656, 661 (1940). 14 certiorari accordingly granted, judgment affirmed. held directed order, vacated, proceedings consistent opinion. 15 ordered. 16 Affirmed part, vacated remanded. portions 158 159, provide part: "Sec. 8(a) "(1) interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise section 7; "(5) refuse bargain collectively representatives his employees, subject provisions 9(a). 9(a) Representatives designated selected majority such purposes, exclusive all "(b) If succeeded, existence violation then turn "employer unit" "appropriate" purposes. need present out summarized Appeals' 104-107, 1042-1045(1975). "(I)n determining employer, considers several nominally entities comprise integrated enterprise, Twenty-first Ann.Rep. 14-15 (1956). controlling criteria, elaborated decisions, operations, management, relations ownership." U.S., 256, S.Ct., 877, L.Ed., 790. n. Supra. "Were called pass conclusions instance independent Appeals, well support reject below. charged Courts normal primary responsibility granting denying orders." 340 502, 455. Judge's favor pertinent 9(b). course, preceded employer. disagreeing compelled dismiss Compare (1965), 491-492, 1050-1051 (1947).

Category: 8