Document: 373 U.S. 690 83 S.Ct. 1423 10 L.Ed.2d 638 LOCAL 100 OF the UNITED ASSOCIATION JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES, Petitioner,v.H. N. BORDEN. No. 541. Argued April 24, 1963. Decided June 3, L. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Robert Weldon Smith, respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion of Court. 1 This case presents one facet recurrent problem defining permissible scope state jurisdiction in field labor relations. The particular question before us involves consideration and application, this suit by a union member against local union, principles declared International Assn. Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 617, 78 923, 2 1018, San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 3 775. I. respondent, H. Borden, who was then Shreveport, Louisiana, plumbers arrived Texas, September 1953, looking job with Farwell Construction Company on bank construction project. Farwell's hiring project done through referral, although there no written agreement to effect. Borden unable obtain such referral from business agent Dallas even after had accepted Borden's clearance card Shreveport foreman called asked have sent over. According testimony, told him: 'You are not going work down or Farwell, you come here wrong, your pocket.' 4 And according foreman, answered his request saying: 5 'I am about send that old _ there, he shoved our throat I him bank.' never did get referred several other jobs during period completed. 6 Subsequently, brought present local, petitioner here, parent International,1 seeking damages under law refusal refer Farwell. He alleged actions defendants constituted willful, malicious, discriminatory interference right contract pursue lawful occupation; breached promise, implicit membership arrangement, discriminate unfairly deny any work; violated certain statutory provisions.2 7 Petitioner challenged court's jurisdiction, asserting subject matter within exclusive National Labor Relations Board. trial court upheld challenge dismissed suit, but appeal Texas Court Civil Appeals, relying Court's decision supra, reversed remanded trial. 316 S.W.2d 458. Supreme granted writ error another point affirmed remand. 160 Tex. 203, 328 739. 8 At trial, submitted jury special issues jury's answers included findings been promised representative; Borden; 'wilfully' refused let project, knowing entitled rules; conduct approved officers members Actual loss earnings resulting found be $1,916; compensation mental suffering, $1,500; punitive damages, $5,000. disallowed recovery anguish ordered remittitur excess amount actual thus awarding total $3,832. Appeals affirmed, 355 729, again rejecting petitioner's preemption argument. Following denial we certiorari, 371 939, 319, 9 274, consider whether federal precludes exercise over dispute. II. held 775, absence an overriding interest as involved maintenance domestic peace, courts must defer competence Board cases which activity is litigation arguably protections § prohibitions Act.3 relinquishment stated, essential 'if danger national policy averted,' U.S., at 245, S.Ct., 780 necessary equitable relief. Thus first inquiry, claim raised, into may reasonably asserted cognizance. In case, respondent contends assertion can made, disagree.4 facts complaint, jury, agent, ultimate approval itself, sought, resulted inability employment. Notwithstanding contrary view, if it assumed employment were some way based respondent's believed failure comply internal rules, certainly 'arguable' union's 8(b)(1)(A), restraining coercing protected refrain observing those 8(b)(2), causing employer violation 8(a)(3).5 See, e.g., Radio Officers' Union, etc. Board, 347 17, 74 323, 98 L.Ed. 455; Local 568, Hotel Employees, 141 N.L.R.B. 29; Union Operating Engineers, 524 A—B, 57. As established Officers 'membership' 8(a)(3) incorporated 8(b)(2) broad enough embrace participation activities good standing well mere adhesion organization. 39—42, 335—336. substantial possibility live up rule prohibiting solicitation contractor6 precisely reason why denied. Indeed meaning agent's remark, testified himself, 'you 11 It also contended inquiry facts, might unfair practice rather concerted 7. has hiring-hall practices do necessarily violate provisions law, 357, Brotherhood Teamsters 365 667, 81 835, 11, Board's appraisal conflicting testimony led conclude due only efforts circumvent arrangement than engaging activities. problems inherent operation halls difficult complex, see Rothman, Development Current Status Law Pertaining Hiring Hall Arrangements, 48 Va.L.Rev. 871, importance limiting initial adjudicate matters single expert agency. 12 We need should now federally prohibited, theories suggested above different basis.7 sufficient purposes find, do, comes jurisdiction. III. 13 Respondent urges could dealt with, still deprived 1018. Gonzales individual claimed expelled contractual rights restoration membership. sought consequential flowing expulsion, including wages physical suffering. recognized remedy afford indeed affairs unions themselves wthin competence.8 14 went hold that, presence admitted order membership, State without power 'to fill out remedy' award though these law. Taft-Hartley Act, require mutilation 'the comprehensive relief equity.' 621, 925. 15 decision, evident, turned conclusion lawsuit focused purely matters, i.e., relations between plaintiff having directly employment, principal rights. posture, collateral form 16 determine extent holding qualified respect clear event does th rationale. principally, entirely, No specific directed status 'fill out' permitting damages. 'crux' action (Gonzales, 618, 924) concerned 17 Nor regard significant complaint sounded tort. label affixed cause controls determination relationship Rather, stated 246, 76 780, 18 '(o)ur concern delimiting areas free regulation left unhampered.' (Emphasis added.) 19 centered, described terms tort contract, whose lawfulness initially judged agency vested primary apply standards. 20 Accordingly, judgment below reversed. 21 Reversed. 22 Mr GOLDBERG took part case. 23 DOUGLAS, whom CLARK concurs, dissenting. 24 While dissented Association fail how fairly distinguished one. Both same author, difficulty reconciling them. they decided Congress reentered Landrum-Griffin Act 1959. 73 Stat. 519. Yet, points indication thought incorrectly interpreted balance struck matters. 25 distinction draws Gonzales—that matters—is intelligently myriad field. started quarrel concerning Gonzales; concerned, Gonzales. And, conceded complained Because similarities, because clearly saying '(i)t jurisdiction,' able find support fact primarily 'equitable' where allowed member's remedy. Cf. Federal Rules Procedure, 1, 2, 54(c). 26 controversy classical Suits employees fall category Moore Illinois Central R. Co., 312 630, 61 754, 85 1089. policy, much said allowing employee recourse conventional home-town tribunal redress grievances. Washington, D.C., its administrative agencies—and regional offices—are often distant remote expensive reach. Under today's real dispute go remedy.* 27 supra; Guss Utah 353 77 598, 601. When basic employer, hiatus exist jurisdictional filled resort economic power. But when rely. If Gonzales—written spirit Moore—is survive, affirmed. verdict favor International, organization therefore longer Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann., 1962, Art. 5207a—'Right bargain freely * *'—was cited complaint. statute, however, relied upon supporting recovery, effect considered here. 49 452, amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 157, 158. deal suits 301 303 Management 156, 158, 185, 187, governed applicable. Smith Evening News Assn., 195, 267, 246. existence requisite commerce bring Section 8(a) provides shall '(3) discrimination hire tenure term condition encourage discourage *.' 8(b) agents '(1) restrain coerce (A) guaranteed section *:' '(2) attempt subsection (a)(3) 30 Article bylaws pertinent 'Members solicit contractor their representative. All procured Business Office 100.' possible additional basis example, refers recent Miranda Fuel 140 7, majority bargaining representative violates 'when, arbitrary irrelevant reasons clasification, attempts derogate employee.' Again, pass correctness applicability circumstances noted, contains proviso 'this paragraph impair prescribe own rules acquisition retention therein.' means General Counsel, 3(d) 'final authority' investigate charges issue complaints, made file charge behalf claimant. See Hourihan 91 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 201 F.2d 187; Dunn Retail Clerks, Cir., 299 873; 307 285.

Category: 9