Document: 373 U.S. 746 83 S.Ct. 1461 10 L.Ed.2d 678 RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1625, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners,v.Alberta SCHERMERHORN al. No. 368. Argued April 18, 1963. Decided June 3, [Syllabus from intentionally omitted] S. G. Lippman, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Bernard B. Weksler, Miami, Fla., respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Like National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corp., 734, 1453, decided today, this case involves status an 'agency shop' arrangement. We have concluded that contract involved here is within scope § 14(b) Act and therefore congressionally made subject to prohibition by Florida law. not determined, however, whether courts, rather than solely Board, are tribunals with jurisdiction enforce [Amicus Curiae State's against such arrangements. Accordingly, retained on calendar reargument undecided issue. 2 Retail Clerks Local 1625 certified bargaining agent Food Fair Stores supermarket chain in five South counties. In October 1960 union employer negotiated a collective agreement effective until 1963.1 The provided various terms conditions employment, as protection discharge except just cause, paid vacations holidays, pregnancy leaves absence, life hospitalization insurance, time off vote, serve juries, attend funerals, well wage-and-hour terms; grievance arbitration clause was inserted enforcement these terms, under which agree divide between them cost grievance-arbitration machinery. also contained Article 19, present lawsuit: 3 'Employees shall right voluntarily join or refrain joining Union. Employees who choose Union, covered contract, be required pay condition initial service fee monthly fees Union purpose aiding defraying costs connection its legal obligations responsibilities exclusive employees appropriate unit. 4 aforesaid payable before first day each month, sums no exceed initiation membership dues those Other payment fees, do further financial requirements any kind It employment all Agreement 30th following beginning date agreement, whichever later, established shown above.' 5 jointly posted notice employees, immediately after execution explaining new particular reference agency shop clause: 6 'The Agency Shop recognizes State voluntary act employee. On other hand, Agreement, become members nevertheless necessary order aid meeting authorized expenses agent. 7 'Therefore, Company agreed even though you may joined obligated, provisions Shop, equal members. Note: An Employee pays regular but does participate internal affairs said receives treatment contract.' 8 class action then instituted respondents, four nonunion Fair, sought declaration 19 'null void unenforceable,' temporary permanent injunction petitioner prevent requiring respondents behalf they sued (all agreement) contribute money accounting. trial court granted motion dismiss ground did violate right-to-work law, Fla.Const. 12, F.S.A.2 47 L.R.R.M. 2300. Supreme Court reversed, holding state law forbade courts could deal here, remanded proceedings court. 141 So.2d 269, cert. granted, 371 909, 253, 9 169. I. great extent turns upon effect Act, added 1947, 29 U.S.C. 164(b): 'Nothing construed authorizing application agreements labor organization Territory prohibited Territorial law.' 11 As apparent language, designed sections completely extinguishing power over certain union-security And it proviso 8(a)(3),3 expressly permitting conditioning union, Congress feared might result. desired 'make certain' 8(a)(3) 'be authorize arrangements sort States where were contrary policy.' H.R.Conf.Rep.No.510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 60, Leg.Hist.L.M.R.A. 564. 12 clear. Whether perfectly coincident, we need now decide, unquestionably overlap some extent. At very least, 'membership' permitted same placed reach 14(b). follows rules one, there held arrangement here—which imposes only obligation enforceable discharge, namely, dues—is 'practical equivalent' 'agreement employment.' Whatever less stringent arrangements, least intend coincide. 13 Petitioners, belatedly,4 would distinguish dealt basis allegedly distinctive features require different provides nonmember payments 'for unit,' provision petitioners say confines use purposes alone forbids their institutional unrelated functions, sharp contrast, argued, situation contributions available without restriction. 14 wholly unpersuaded. There us little more complaint exhibits. is, at best, ambiguous face should not, posture case, respondent raise substantial difference case. ironclad restriction imposed merely describes being 'the Union' expenses. alleged breached if used both expenses, 'aided' obligations, part spent items, since equivalent amount income thereby freed functions. 15 But collections nonmembers must directly committed paying costs, fact bookkeeping significance matter real substance. remembered admittedly exact dues, see p. 749, supra,5 that, says brief,6 collected 'variety purposes, addition union's bargaining.' Unions 'rather typically' 'to things interest behalf.' If total budget divided payments, member, go entirely will his pro rata share. member portion balanced. By larger share subsidizes activities. overall effect, economically, think 14(b), Petitioners' argument, accepted, lead anomalous result invalidate forbidding ban services member. II. 16 difficult phases remain. petitioners' filed issue arguable unfair practice beyond prohibit. another ground, preemption argument renewed rejected pressed has two related aspects. 17 urged category subjected business doubtful cases coverage clearly settled matter. goes, protected federal practice, arguably so. Therefore, doubtful, assertedly tribunal question. Although asked petition certiorari, again brief oral resolve clear thrust phase neither nor purport instance determine 18 much force assessment §§ 7, when significant doubt about matter, initially task so finally come benefit affected agency's views, probability entitled received decided. what necessarily now. place, since, indicated, subjects agreements, equivalent, 8(a)(3). Secondly, Board's own view 14(b): proviso, hence invalidation What question been settled, light of, consistently with, views Board. reason hold our hand juncture arrive foregone conclusion. Cf. Federal Maritime Isbrandtsen Co., 356 481, 78 851, 926. second implicit enjoin operation declared unlawful Without similar saving obvious 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), 8(b)(2), recognized adding original 8(3). With comply practices. Section declares 'nothing Act' application' one thing prohibiting impact all, shops practices prohibit them. quite removes them, precipitated vitality Court's decision Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. Wisconsin Emp. 336 301, 69 584, 93 L.Ed. 691, involved, applicability doctrine, subsequently developed many Court, Garner Teamsters, etc., 346 485, 74 161, 98 228; San Diego Council Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775, situations invalidates contracts 20 substantive legality governed review here. unresolved afford remedy violation prefer dispose full next Term. Moreover, had Solicitor invited file expressing Government. set during forthcoming Term remaining 21 ordered. 22 Case reargument. 23 GOLDBERG took consideration 45 provides: 'This continue 15, 1963, year thereafter unless either party notifies sixty (60) days prior expiration date, anniversary thereafter, desire terminate open amendments and/or changes.' persons work denied abridged account non-membership organization; provided, deny abridge through bargain collectively employer.' 'Provided, That nothing statute United States, preclude making * therein thirtieth later *.' certiorari posed 'authorizes states regulate clause.' likened to, distinguished from, briefing place 'service fee' shop. Licorice 309 350, 357, n. 2, 60 569, 574, 84 799. This factual comes us, dismiss. evidence point, favorable adduced hearing preliminary injunction, record. 'Rather typically, unions members' promote legislation regard desirable defeat undesirable, publish newspapers magazines, free institutions nations, finance low housing, victims natural disaster, support charities, litigation, provide scholarships, cannot take seriously unsupported suggestion assume spends record silent way unique indeed expended funds noncollective purposes. See Brief N.L.R.B., 404, 38. indicated text, seems concede appeared modify withdraw argument. event, pleadings bound give every reasonable inference well-pleaded facts. Wheeldin Wheeler, 647, 648, 1441, 1443; Kendall Wall. 113, 116, 85; Rhode Island Commonwealth Massachusetts, Pet. 233, 272, 721.

Category: 6