Document: 371 U.S. 195 83 S.Ct. 267 9 L.Ed.2d 246 Doyle SMITH, Petitioner,v.EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION. No. 13. Argued Oct. 10, 1962. Decided Dec. Thomas E. Harris, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Philip T. Van Zile, II, Detroit, Mich., respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner is a building maintenance employee respondent Evening News Association, newspaper publisher engaged in interstate commerce, and member Newspaper Guild labor organization having collective bargaining contract with Petitioner, individually as assignee 49 other similar employees who were also members, sued breach Circuit Court Wayne County, Michigan.1 The complaint stated that December 1955 January 1956 respondent, belonging to another union, on strike die not permit petitioner his assignors report their regular shifts, although they ready, able available work.2 During same period, however, editorial, advertising business departments, covered by agreements, permitted work paid full wages even though there was no available. Respondent's refusal pay while paying nonunion employees, asserted, violated clause providing 'there shall be discrimination against any because membership or activity Guild.' 2 trial court sustained respondent's motion dismiss want jurisdiction ground allegations, if true, would make out an unfair practice under National Labor Relations Act hence subject matter within exclusive Board. Michigan Supreme affirmed, 362 Mich. 350, 106 N.W.2d 785, relying upon San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 3 775, like pre-emption cases.3 Certiorari granted, 369 827, 82 843, 7 793, after decisions this Local 174, Teamsters, etc. Lucas Flour Co., 95, 571, 593, Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483. Box, well later Atkinson Sinclair Refining 370 238, 1318, 8 462, suits contracts brought held arise § 301 Management Act4 these cases courts it seriously urged conduct involved arguably protected prohibited therefore In expressly refused apply doctrine Garmon case; we likewise reject here where alleged employer, only arguably, but concededly, Board.5 authority Board deal which violates displaced 301, does destroy 301. If, strongly urges, are situations serious problems will from both over acts amount practice, face those when arise. This one them, our view, accord.6 4 We left claim predicate escaping rule present action collect form damages among 'suits violation between employer * *,' provided There support position Courts Appeals,7 Association Westinghouse Salaried Employees Corp., 348 437, 75 489, 99 L.Ed. 510, majority three separate opinions concluded did give federal suit union enforce rights variously characterized 'peculiar individual benefit matter', 'uniquely personal' arising 'from hiring each employee.' Id., at 460, 461, 464, S.Ct., 500, 503. 5 However, subsequent have removed underpinnings its holding longer authoritative precedent. Three Justices case driven conclusion view procedural only, substantive, grave constitutional questions raised extend controversy involved.8 observed if, contrary belief, 'Congress has itself defined law authorized fashion judicial rules governing question, self-defeating limit scope power less than necessary accomplish congressional aim.' 442, 491. Textile Workers Union America Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972, course, long since settled substantive content Congress directed formulate contracts. difficulty given narrow reading. 456, 457, 918. Section been applied compel arbitration such grievances rates pay, hours wrongful discharge, supra; General Electric 205, UEF, 547, 921, 1028; obtain specific enforcement arbitrator's award ordering reinstatement back United Steelworkers Enterprise Wheel & Car 363 80 1358, 1424; recover wage increases contest validity contract, members no-strike contained agreement. supra. 6 concept all vindicate should excluded coverage thus survived. concerning conditions employment major focus negotiation administration Individual claims lie heart grievance machinery, large degree inevitably intertwined interests many times precipitate interpretation enforceability based. To exclude ambit stultify policy accomplished uniform body law. unwilling do. considerations foreclose reading instead unions. word 'between,' suggests, refers 'suits,' 'contracts,' unions employers purview According governed state law, preempted be, whereas ruled Neither language structure nor legislative history requires persuasively supports restrictive interpretation, frustrate rather serve expressed section. 'The possibility terms might different meanings exert disruptive influence agreements.' supra, 103, 577. conclude petitioner's arises pre-empted rule.9 judgment reversed cause remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed remanded. 10 BLACK, dissenting. 11 I affirm Court's without entertain measured 'back pay' based discrimination, 8(a) makes 10(b) (c) hearings pay.' It true expressions recent indicate may objected Board's jurisdiction.1 seems clear me cases2 neither prior us hold either can made defend themselves governmental regulation sanctions type Such duplication supervision industrial relationships bound create undesirable confusion, conflicts, burdensome designed prevent, interpreted Building 775 (1959). 12 One example enough show how Congress' confining controversies practices frustrated permitting claimants choose whether seek relief before provides 'no issue occurring more six months filing charge *.' contrast, statute limitations years.3 opens up way defeat plan, adopted vigorous minority objection, expedite peace requiring complaining party act promptly initiation proceedings.4 Instead, filed, now possible highly probable disputes hang festering sores grow worse years.5 Of course could later, statutory surgical operation, six-months actions But drastic changes wrought passed, important wait perform operation. 13 reason why cannot agree disposition case. last note page opinion, says: 14 part set record no-discrimination clause. Respondent argue need consider question petitioner, standing sue do clauses contracts.' Unless my wrong, purports reserve suffered kind agreement file lawsuit himself Earlier decides subject-matter is, empowered determine. then rejects argument never circumstances bring suit. studiously refrains saying when, what kinds breach, he must step aside prosecute claim. Nor decide types bring. puzzles me. usually deciding first satisfying raising entitled (has standing) least slight deviation normal determine applicable particular leaving open deciding. heretofore thought render advisory opinions. Moreover, am wholly unable right individuals argued here. 15 Finally, workers' rights, think clearly unequivocally injured own way. believe intended originally passed amended take away freely exercised country due process became recognized guiding principle jurisprudence. And surely relegate workers lawsuits status words companies procedure had exhausted recourse courts. Compare 462; Drake Bakeries Inc. 50, American Bakery Workers, 254, 1346, 474. A small number some during strike. Garner Union, 346 485, 74 161, 98 228; Weber Anheuser Busch, 468, 480, 546. 'Suits representing industry affecting commerce Act, organizations, district States parties, respect regard citizenship parties.' 301(a), 29 U.S.C. 185(a), U.S.C.A. 185(a). 'It hire tenure term condition encourage discourage 8(a)(3), 158(a)(3), 158(a)(3). An filed remedy pursued proceeding commenced six-month limitation period prescribed expired. Board, known amicus curiae brief Solicitor General, ousting fail promote, actually obstruct, purposes Act. has, occasions, declined exercise where, judgment, best served parties processes See, e.g., Consolidated Aircraft 47 N.L.R.B. 694; Spielberg Mfg. 112 1080. E.g., Lodge 2040, I.A.M. AFL—CIO Servel, Inc., 268 F.2d 692 (C.A.7th Cir.); Copra Suro, 236 107 (C.A.1st Protective Ford Motor 194 997 Cir.). See Dimeco Fisher, 185 F.Supp. 213 (D.N.J.) cited therein. Two Justices, plaintiff employees. Rfg. 245, n. 5, 1323, 462 (1962); Teamsters 101, 9, 575, 593 513, 525, 526, 483 (1962). 1, claims, arbitrate grievances. concerned discharge employee, disputes. officers company failure put into effect vacation benefits none activities jurisdiction, suggest were. Mich.Comp.Laws, 1948, 609.13. H.R.Rep. 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 40 (1947) (majority view), id., 90 (minority view). Government suggests years extended that, court, competence referred Dividing two single result shuttling operation experience shows decade. protracted litigation finally El Dorado Oil Works States, 328 12, 66 1053 (1946).

Category: 9