Document: 394 U.S. 423 89 S.Ct. 1154 22 L.Ed.2d 385 Russell SCOFIELD et al., Petitioners,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD al. No. 273. Argued Jan. 14, 1969. Decided April 1, James Urdan, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioners. Norton J. Come and John Silard, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Half production employees Wisconsin Motor Corporation are paid on a piecework or incentive basis. They other represented by respondent union, which has had contractual relations with company since 1937.1 In 1938 union initiated ceiling its members would accept immediate pay. This was done at first gentlemen's agreement among members, but 1944 rule enforceable fines expulsion. As functions now, may produce as much they like each day, only draw pay up to rate. The additional is 'banked' y company; that is, wages due it retained out employee days not been reached because machine breakdown some reason. If member demands be in full period over rate will comply, assesses fine $1 violation, cases repeated violation $100 'conduct unbecoming member.' Failure lead trial examiner found, company's complaint cannot 'the employee, he receives, given requisite quid pro quo production.' 145 N.L.R.B. 1097, 1120. Rather, question extent group forgo rest periods bargained for, discipline invoke achieve unity toward this end which, 'manifestly matter affecting interest collective bargaining strength hinges upon cooperation individual components.' Ibid. 2 contract between employer defines 'machine rate' hourly guaranteed employees. rate, defined contract, set such level average competent operator working reasonable pace (as determined time study) shall earn less than his assigned task.'2 Allowances made study setting machinery, cleaning tools, fatigue, personal needs. By ignoring these allowances speed efficiency possible an industrious faster does so, entitled Union however, subject banking procedures imposed rule. 3 margin 'machine' 10¢ per hour 1944. result both rates, increased 45¢ 50¢, depending skill job. regularly urged abandon never agreed refuse work ceiling. However, parties have extracted from promises increase opens records permit check compliance ceiling; pays stewards spent checking activity legitimate business; banks money complying also used computing piece increases settling grievances. 4 case arose 1961 when random card showed petitioners, exceeded membership $50 $100, year's suspension union. Petitioners refused fines, brought suit state court collect local law.3 then charges before National Labor Relations Board, arguing enforcement through collection unfair labor practice. asserted their right refrain 'concerted activities,' ct, § 7, 49 Stat. 452, amended, 29 U.S.C. 157, impaired union's effort 'restrain coerce' them, NLRA, 8(b)(1)(A). examiner, after extensive findings, concluded there no Act, findings recommendations were adopted 1097 (1964), whose order enforced Court Appeals Seventh Circuit, 393 F.2d (1968). We affirm. I. 5 met outset contention petition certiorari untimely filed. civil suits must applied 'within ninety entry (the) judgment decree' review sought. 28 2101(c). March 5, 1968, 'upon presentation, appropriate decree entered.' A fact entered 16, 1968. docketed here July 6, within 90 opinion. 6 our view, timely received copy opinion, notice any date, required Rule 36 new Federal Rules Appellate Procedure, effective Since could clear petitioners whether we hold, without abandoning standard 'judgment purposes final issues adjudged' settled finality, Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 324 548, 551—552, 65 770, 773, L.Ed. 1171 (1945); FTC Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 206, 212, 73 245, 249, 97 245 (1952), relevant date decree. Cf. Rubber Goodyear, Wall. 153, 156, 18 762 (1868). II. 7 Section 8(b)(1) makes practice coerce (A) exercise rights (§ 7): Provided, That paragraph impair organization prescribe own rules respect acquisition retention therein * *.' 8 Based legislative history section, including proviso, NLRB Allis-Chalmers Mfg. 388 175, 195, 87 2001, 2014, 1123 (1967), distinguished internal external held 'Congress did propose limitations affairs unions, aside barring regulations affect member's employment status.' rule, duly arbitrary fiat officer, forbidding crossing picket line during strike therefore against voluntary expulsion fine. thus essentially accepted position Board dating Minneapolis Star & Tribune 109 727 (1954) where enforcement4 holding failure take part picketing same causing exclude him force seniority triggering violations §§ 8(b)(1), 8(b)(2), 8(a)(1), 8(a) (2), 8(a)(3). These sections form web, 8(b)(1)(A) strand, preventing inducing use emoluments job enforce rules.5 9 interpretation explained Allis-Chalmers, U.S., 193—195, 2013—2014, reinforced Landrum-Griffin Act 1959 although dealt imposing expulsion, purport overturn modify Board's 8(b)(1).6 And followed now us. 10 Although construction section emphasizes sanction imposed, rather itself, involve judging fairness wisdom particular rules, become if invades frustrates overriding policy laws enforced, even violating 8(b)(1). Skura7 Marine Workers,8 concerned requiring exhaust remedies filing charge Board. frustrated scheme established statute commit fining expelling who violated 11 Workers came here9 sustained, agreeing contrary plain keep completely free coercion making complaints Frustrating beyond organization, least conduct well 12 Under dual approach, leaves properly reflects interest, impairs Congress imbedded laws, reasonably leave escape view here. III. 13 hand, showing record unreasonable mere leader, involuntary. Moreover, carried means unacceptable themselves, violence discrimination. It solely technique collected threat judicial action. inquiry focus legitimacy vindicated union-imposed 14 noted, opposition unlimited systems historic. apprehension, foundation, drive productivity turn create pressures lower so new, higher output earning little more before. fear competitive pressure generated endanger workers' health, foment jealousies, reduce force. addition, served yardstick settlement allowance grievances, played important role negotiating minimum 'factoring' raises into 'in terms traditional function trying serve economic interests whole, very real, immediate, direct it.' N.L.R.B., 1135. 15 doubtless true affects all three participants labor-management relation: employer, union.10 handled matter, intended impact confines organization. But clear, follow violates 8(b)(1)(A), unless impairment statutory can shown. 16 principal impedes bargaining, process nurtured many ways Act. surely denied bargainable issue. bargain about far shows. Indeed, various times raise return compute light hardly said removed issue b rgaining table. repeatedly sought eliminating ceiling, obtained, unquestionably attain this. Although, pressed point impasse, Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. 379 203, 209—215, 85 398, 402 405, 233 lockout, so. Instead, signed contracts recognizing tolerated it, cooperated administration honoring requests bank over-ceiling work. discern basis encouraging giving better able table.11 17 Nor itself violate contract. scale, considerably below average, efficient worker. hands option taking advantage allowances, performing reaching At nothing us indicate disciplines individuals choose exceed decision collectively scale excess context support inference impose action announcing one somehow neither nor breach establishing adhering equally causes invites stands ready request. characterize featherbedding, hard square produces substantially Beyond that, addressed specifically problem featherbedding 8(b)(6), 'to cause attempt deliver agree thing value, nature exaction, services performed 61 142, 158(b)(6). narrow prohibition enacted partly found difficult define particularity just area shiftlessness overwork should lie.12 left broad private negotiation, present occasion courts interfere decision. claim 8(b)(6). wants require employees, let bargain. presently drawn do it. 19 argument successfully doing discriminate those others permits. All unit, rights. dealing agent, accorded uniform treatment. prevented chosen remain members. strengthened hand benefited obeyed nonmembers not. here, price obeying high Allis-Chalmers. There replaced refusal report strike; need simply limit suffer whatever consequences entail. chooses engage concerted unable prevail change obtain benefits advancement extra work, enjoying protection competition, security tends promote. 20 choice results differences serious under 8(b)(2) (3) induced merely forbidden willing confer. Those aimed though offered employer. quite clear. 21 unimpaired, breached unperformed services, discrimination class represents dereliction duty fair representation. this, acceptable manner vindicating impossible say contravened affirm, valid constitute restraint proscribed 23 Affirmed. 24 MARSHALL took consideration case. 25 BLACK, dissenting. 26 Because company, tried fined suspended them year. activities. coercing suspensions refusing activity. I dissent affirming reasons length my dissenting 9, 2016, (1967). clause current 30-day waiting period, becoming remaining good standing declining paying 'service fee.' 'day rate,' applies worker producing, produced scrap, fault company's. concern Unless impinges federal law, regulation relationship governed law. put case, 'never suggest disciplinary action(s) (union) affirmatively protected opposed being thereof.' 'federally unentered enclave' open 1133. long 8(b)(1)(A)'s requires nevertheless proscribes methods coercion, physical induce join strike. re Maritime Union, 78 971, 175 686 (C.A.2d Cir. 1949). 'policy insulate employees' jobs organizational rights.' Radio Officers' 347 17, 40, 74 323, 335, 98 455 (1954). 'good, bad, indifferent' meets financial obligations Thus discharged limiting production. Printz Leather 94 1312 (1951). member, one, discipline. bill freedom speech assembly 'Provided, herein construed adopt responsibility every institution refraining performance legal obligations.' Pub.L. 86—257, Tit I, 101(a)(2), 522, 411(a)(2). Local 138, International Operating Engineers, 148 679 (1964). Industrial Shipbuilding America, 159 1065 (1966). Workers, 391 418, 88 1717, 706 prefers employ number most energetic men available; help objective winnowing reducing Each well, slow prefer low protect himself invidious comparison workers reduction beginning him. fast day disire none all. maintaining necessary prevent reductions (representing group) seek vindicate bargaining. express councils determining what be—and overwhelmingly approved ceiling—or exercising withdrawing suggests ceilings exist, management might invent purposes: careful standards scrap permitting prediction output. 1119—1120. Senator Taft, cosponsor Chairman Senate Committee Public Welfare, stated floor 'would practical application law hundreds different industries, determination facts seemed me almost impossible.' contrast, said, 'we provision' 'seemed fairly easy determine' narrow. 93 Cong.Rec. 6441.

Category: 6