Document: 371 U.S. 156 83 S.Ct. 239 9 L.Ed.2d 207 BURLINGTON TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants,v.UNITED STATES al. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 554, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED Nos. 27, 28. Argued Oct. 15 and 16, 1962. Decided Dec. 3, [Syllabus from pages 156-158 intentionally omitted] David Axelrod, Chicago, Ill., for appellants in No. 27. D. Weinberg, Omaha, Neb., Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., appellees United States Interstate Commerce Commission. J. Max Harding, Lincoln, appellee Nebraska Short Line Carriers, Inc. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These are direct appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, U.S.C.A. 1253 judgment a three-judge District Court, 194 F.Supp. 31 (S.D.Ill.), which upheld an order Commission, 79 M.C.C. 599, granting motor common carrier application. This Court noted probable jurisdiction because important questions raised as to relationship interplay between remedies available Act National Labor Relations amended by Management Act. 49 seq.; 29 151 seq., 368 951, 82 393, 7 385. 2 Appellee Inc., is corporation, organized June 1956. All its stock owned 12 carriers serving eastern central interchanging interstate traffic at Omaha other gateway points with over 20 larger trunk-line carriers, among whom appellant throughroute, joint-rate, interline arrangements have been established. Some stockholder serve communities without or rail service. 3 For some time prior May 1956, had resisted efforts Teamsters Union too unionize their operations. Eventually, union sought bring economic pressure bear upon secondary boycott against through larger, unionized, were dependent beyond Nebraska. The collective bargaining contract trunkline contained protection rights so-called 'hot cargo' clauses reserved members 'the right refuse handle goods any firm truck' involved controversy provided that it should not be cause discharge if employee refused 'unfair' goods.1 4 In began experiencing difficulties receiving delivering freight many normal logical connections and, extent, Sioux City, Grand Island. difficulty consisted primarily refusal on part accept tendered them turn inbound routed lines normally turned delivery ultimate destinations shippers, consignees thus experienced considerable delay, inconvenience, unforeseen expense movement interior points. At same time, however, interlining particularly Burlington Truck Lines, Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, generally maintained relationships carriers. 5 thereupon 22, filed application Commission authority transport commodities regularly scheduled basis certain Iowa States. A further operating irregular routes 32 different was six months later. applications assigned two examiners, each recommended before him denied. stated pertinent facts accurately adequately stated' examiners' reports adopted statements own (79 M.C.C., 605, 608), but concluded first granted part.2 found although service area satisfactory after date union-induced caused 'a substantial disruption' 'serious inadequacies available.' 612, 613. Accordingly, grant Line's required present future public convenience necessity.' Id., declared attempting adjudicate labor dispute trench Board, conceded lack look duties terms 611. It strongly criticized yielding demands, carriers' failure fulfill inexcusable since there no violence imminent threats danger property person. expressed alleged 'apprehensions opposition demands would resulted reprisals them' 'greatly exaggerated,' successfully continued deal least one encountering employees when changed policy carried out statutory interlined carriers.3 612. 6 Finally, considered remedy appropriate situation. applied (certificates necessity). As noted, provides means correcting deficiencies Section 204(c) empowers comply transportation laws, may act complaint motion complaint, case notice hearing, sanctions enforce orders;4 212(a) suspend certificates proceeded dispose problem following manner: 'We do agree those parties who insist procedure here adopted; namely, filing instant provisions section act, manner inappropriate. Regardless injection situation into matter, based claimed shipping Where, here, existing shown so conducted operations result serious large public, effective method sufficient additional service, fact, we charged duty procuring such facilities necessary carry purposes national policy. fact available, suggested complaints aggrieved shippers does alter deprive follow course chosen.' 8 therefore application.5 protesting affected judicial review (28 §§ 1336, 1398, 2321—2325, 2321—2325), within scope Commission's authority, adequate findings, supported evidence. 31. court reviewed evidence 'no doubt (the carriers') ability perform 195(6) adequate,' record showed made inadequate thereafter. 45. recognized cease-and-desist might utilized, certification also permissible unavailable merely reason inadequacy 'existing (were) subordinating obligations agreements.' 54. 10 regard choice remedy, rejected contention passage Labor-Management Reporting Disclosure 1959, added 8(e) Act, 73 Stat. 543, (Supp. III) 158(e), four entry order, mooted making activities inducing illegal unlikely resumed. doubts whether 'effectively outlaws clauses,' that, even did, still stand. 58. To union's certificate injected province undercut extent policies replied organize destroyed Board creation.' 59.6 now us this judgment. 11 We must reversed set aside improvident exercise discretion. refusals interchange shippers7 disruption despite maintain relationships. There ample support these findings disturb them. arises connection conclusions relevant remedy. assumption either available—additional order—and unlimited discretion apply simply effective. unmistakably clear fact-findings adopted,8 solely serve, arose obtain objectives. equally absent circumstances services adequate.9 Moreover, below capacity,10 position anxious traffic11, enjoying previously divert Line.12 factual context put outset rely holds way generalized See, e.g., Davidson Transfer Co. States, 42 215, 219—220 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 317 587, 63 31, 87 L.Ed. 481.13 When, particular deviations otherwise completely (which has need traffic) consist discriminatory deliver powers 204, 212, 216 heavily propriety relief. And automatic; rational conscious interest 'adequate, economical, efficient service' outbalances whatever protecting revenues 'foster sound conditions several (National Policy, preceding 1, 301, 901, 1001, 1001),14 opposing interests. 13 analysis justify made, indication exercised expert prepared Administrative Procedure Act15 will permit adjudicatory practice. See Siegel Federal Trade Comm'n, 327 608, 613—614, 66 758, 761, 90 888. Expert lifeblood administrative process, 'unless make requirements action strict demanding, expertise, strength modern government, can become monster rules practical limits discretion.' New York 342 882, 884, 72 152, 153, 96 662 (dissenting opinion). 'Congress did purport transfer legislative power unbounded regulatory body.' Communications Comm'n RCA Communications, 346 86, 90, 998, 1002, 97 1470. 207(a) bounds standard 'public Compare id., 91, courts determine agency done so, 'disclose order' 'give Congress empowered it.' Phelps Dodge Corp. 313 177, 197, 61 845, 854, 85 1271. decision, J T Transport Co., 81, 93, 211, 147; Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 315 475, 488—489, 62 722, 729, 86 971; M., St. P. & P.R. 294 499, 511, 55 462, 1023. Here specifically directed vastly consequences public. Nor articulate made. addressed itself neither possible shortcomings 204 procedures, advantages certification, nor objections latter. shall presently show, they taken account. 14 Appellants' could terminated procedures obviated. was, indicated, unresponsive arguments deeming availability '(did) situation.' error. counsel attempt 'choice' ground ineffective. short answer attempted justification find. Securities Exchange Chenery 332 194, 196, 67 1575, 1577, 91 1995. appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations action; requires agency's discretionary upheld, all, articulated itself: '(A) simple fundamental rule law * reviewing court, dealing determination alone authorized make, judge grounds invoked agency. If improper, powerless affirm *.' Ibid. 16 substitute incompatible orderly functioning process review. deprecate, vindicate (see 853, 1271), purpose avoid 'propel(ling) domain exclusively agency.' U.S., S.Ct., 17 second longer base finding every render purely temporary phenomena promoting adequate, fostering affected. 18 said compliance unionized 'so aggravate complete cessation operations.' But ignores conclusion apprehensions teamster exaggerated unwarranted. aware, ordered cease boycotting carrier. International Brotherhood Teamsters, Local 116 N.L.R.B.1891. sure, directly free appeals, inducement employees, far laws agreement16 concerned, employer reject accede requests. precisely point Sand Door (Local 1976 357 78 1011, 1186) enter orders violating tariffs.17 Thus, argues,18 assumed ordinary processes law19 incapable remedying situation.20 19 discussion effectiveness 1959 status hot cargo largely academic: decision year sustained Under 'be unfair practice organization agreement, express implied, whereby ceases refrains agrees refrain handling, using, selling, transporting products employer, doing business person, agreement entered heretofore hereafter containing unenforcible void. absence authoritative interpretation 8(e), unwilling attach significance new case. erred. plain words statute very about legality union-employer agreements another employer. Not only delinquent subject injunctive conduct violated s unions themselves vulnerable21 pressures generated well effectively removed. intervening complexion (even putting considerations discussed above) equity discretion, affirmed vacated remanded consideration light conditions. Ford Motor 305 364, 373—374, 59 307, 221; State Mo. ex rel. Wabash R. Public Serv. 273 126, 130—131, 47 311, 313, 71 575; Gulf, C. S.F.R. Dennis, 224 503, 506—509, 542, 543—544, 56 860.22 wish fetter expert, prescribing relief (if, indeed, needed) rather than nevertheless careful careful, effects relations acts most delicate affirmatively (whether grants enters order) necessarily accommodated, other. Writing amendments law, case: 21 'But enforcing interfering administration statute, interpreting prohibitions consistent carrier's Because cannot consent shipper. relieve mean ineffective all purposes, mechanically involving singificantly purposes.' 110, 1021, 1186. 22 'common factors emerge adjudication questions' Acts agencies, independent resolution possible, directing 8(b) attention 'may failed his Act.' 23 Implicit recognition other's jurisdiction, competence, contravene relations. context, sweeping more precise narrowly drawn improvident, compelling justification. exposes underlines necessity fashioning terminate unlawful say never authorize discriminating awareness action. here. 24 reversed. instructions enjoining, annulling, setting remanding proceedings opinion. ordered. 25 Judgment instructions. 26 BLACK, concurring dissenting part. 27 I concur Court's permanent compete interruptions lawful meet needs commerce. concur, remand proceedings. vested regulate employer-employee think stems wholly delays owing Board's effect punishes honoring then contracts, amounts impermissible encroachment domain. called decide stoppage commerce acute emergency situations such, illustration, shortage food supplies urgently needed localities. enough what arise; presented Since my view competitor, see matter referred back Such assumes take. My provide permitting desist carrying unions. Nothing gives prohibit permits do. out, outlawed kind interfered transportation. has, enactment, clearly hand enforcement old earmarks mootness, technically moot not. truck violate backed courts, force both obey law. congressionally appointed field stepping regulation. State* invade territory preempted agencies choice. CLARK, result. 30 Four enacted amendment 158(e). language unions' pressures, continuation 'substantial appears me reconsideration likelihood circumstances. where certifications drastic resort except reversal lapse , issue mooted, purpose. GOLDBERG, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN join, concurring. 33 join add few state conviction 'discriminating action' opinion, inevitably lead, warranted doubt), rejection favor appropriately limited order. 34 plainly demonstrate, intervention underlying degree unduly trenching parties. Most certainly been, conflict arisen I.C.C. N.L.R.B. respective responsibilities. requiring compatible federal That demonstrated Fe, agreements, able Carrier creating problems being difficult understand why clause provided, part: 'It violation Agreement go picket line goods. permitted Agreement. members, individually collectively, reserve engaged Union; pickups from, deliveries establishments lines, strikes, walk-outs lock-outs exist. 'The term 'unfair goods' used Article includes, to, equipment transported, interchanged, handled, carrier, party not, whose terminals places hand, hand; continue while handled succeeding until settled. insistence Employer employee(s) elected approved writing responsible officials Central Drivers Council, immediate strike Employer's grievance herein.' Omaha-Chicago Omaha-Kansas City-St. Louis route, originating destined 606, 614. No denial Apparently, instances supervisory personnel touch it. 82. (revocation), 222(a) (fine), 222(b) (injunction). brought appellee's way, course, invoke 204(c), 222. similar decided concurrently (Galveston Corporation Extension, 619). led issuance obedience Ada 617; note 17, infra) 'ceased exist whereas proceeding recent origin continuing up including hearing.' approximately intervened examiner's report years hearings During argued remaining docket pending decision. 617, n. 1. Duplex Printing Press Deering, 254 443, 471—472, 41 172, 178—179, 65 349. 2(3), 9, 152(3), 159; Norris-La-Guardia 13(c), 113(c). boycotts imposed disputes. reports. 608. 87—89, 95. Ibid., 68—69. Atchison, T. Reddish, 210, 147, argument resorted replace shippers' particularized physical needs. case, like cases cite throughroute overcome joint-line (e.g., Penn Ohio Exp. Ext.—N.Y., 269; Malone Ext.—Textiles, 501; Dallas Mavis Fwdg. Ext.—Mont., 64 511; Braswell Ext. Calif., 68 664; Kenosha Ext.—Kenosha, 289), inapposite nothing inherently wrong nature capacity, infrequency pickups, delivery, like. acceding boycott, Fe. 603. 8(b), 1007(b), decisions 'include statement conclusions, reasons therefor, material issues record.' supra, forth provisions, cargo, left devices. Cf. supra. cited approval Galveston 617), clauses. 109 contends brief procedure, followed 'would remedy' 1956—1959. contended, consider efficacy severely self-imposed limitation ordering discriminatorily refusing joint rates. cf. Dixie 351 56, 76 578, 100 934; Mechling, 330 567, 894, 1102. find, record, likely higher, combination imply authority. totally remedial proved fruitless, hopelessly time-consuming, intend pass 210a alternative Pan-Atlantic S.S. Atlantic Coast 353 436, 77 999, 963. Amalgamated Lithographers America (Ind.), 130 985; America, 968, 301 F.2d (C.A.5th Cir.); American Feed 129 321. Court's, Commission's, San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 773, 775 (1959). Although ban adjudicated subsequent tend remove doubt. 294, 298 105 (C.A.2d Cir., 1961).

Category: 8