Document: 385 U.S. 421 87 S.Ct. 559 17 L.Ed.2d 486 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.C & C PLYWOOD CORP. No. 53. Argued Nov. 15, 1966. Decided Jan. 9, 1967. Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, See 386 939, 951. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George J. Tichy, Spokane, Wash., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The respondent employer was brought before National Labor Relations Board to answer a complaint that its inauguration premium pay plan during term collective agreement, without prior consultation with union representing employees, violated duties imposed by § 8(a)(5) and (1) Act.1 issued cease-and-desist order, rejecting claim respondent's action authorized agreement.2 Court Appeals Ninth Circuit refused, however, enforce Board's order. It reasoned provision in agreement between employer, which 'arguably' allowed institute plan, divested jurisdiction entertain union's unfair labor practice charge. 351 F.2d 224. We granted certiorari consider substantial question federal law. 384 903, 86 1337, 16 357. 2 In August 1962, Plywood, Lumber, Saw Mill Workers Local 2405 certified as bargaining representative production maintenance employees. resulted from contained following provision: 3 'Article XVII 4 'WAGES 5 'A. A classified wage scale has been agreed upon Employer Union, signed parties thereby made part written agreement. reserves right rate over above contractual reward any particular employee some special fitness, skill, aptitude or like. payment such shall not be considered permanent increase position may, at sole option Employer, reduced * *.' 6 also stipulated wages should 'closed' period it effective3 neither party obligated bargain collectively respect matter specifically referred contract.4 Grievance machinery established, but no ultimate arbitration grievances other disputes provided. 7 Less than three weeks after this signed, posted notice all members 'glue spreader' crews would paid $2.50 per hour if their met specified biweekly (and later weekly) standards, although under 'classified scale' quoted Art. these were hourly ranging $2.15 $2.29, depending function within crew.5 When learned through one members, immediately asked conference During meetings followed request, indicated willingness discuss terms refused rescind pending those discussions. 8 refusal prompted charge an violation §§ (1). trial examiner found had instituted program good-faith reliance reserved He, therefore, dismissed complaint. reversed. Giving consideration history negotiations parties,6 well express provisions ruled ceded power unilaterally change system had. For while different glue spreader merit increases 'particular employee(s),' placed on same output crew whole. 9 refusing did decide misinterpreted Board. Instead, held have find 8(a) Act, because 'existence (did) turn entirely arguably dispute correct meaning collective-bargaining F.2d, 228. 10 does proposition may unless contract authorizes him do so. v. H. Allison Co., 165 766, A.L.R.2d 990 (C.A.6th Cir.), cert. denied, 335 814, 69 31, 93 L.Ed. 369. Cf. Beacon Piece Dyeing 121 N.L.R.B. 953 (1958).7 argument is, rather, since might question, powerless determine whether authorize action, state court 301 Act.8 11 evaluating contention, is important first point out clause.9 provide grievance procedures, end result differences remained unresolved, economic warfare, 'the therapy arbitration.' Carey Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 261, 272, 84 401, 409, 320. Thus, case way inconsistent previous recognition 'an instrument national policy composing differences.' International Harvester 138 923, 926 (1962), aff'd sub nom. Ramsey Board, 327 784 (C.A.7th 377 1003, 1938, 12 1052.10 rests primarily legislative 1947 amendments Act. said rejection Congress bill given breaches agreements shows involving interpretation contract. draw inference history. 13 determined general alleged violations agreements11 matters courts,12 acting principle already recognized: 14 'The Railway like undertake governmental regulation wages, hours, working conditions. Instead seeks means reached them.' 15 Terminal Railroad Ass'n Brotherhood Trainmen, 318 1, 6, 63 420, 423, 571. To conferred generalized rights step toward agreements. view Congress' decision give broad take step.13 But construed extent employer. own what conditions be. done more merely statutory necessary allow management get process reaching fair emplonment—'to reached.' went only so far agree up safeguards. necessarily construing case, exceeded laid Congress. This conclusion reinforced judicial defense divest jurisdiction. example, Mastro Plastics Corp. 350 270, 76 349, 100 309, legality employer's reinstate strikers based construction 'no strike' clause contended refuse back workers who walked protest practice. applied reinstatement pay. giving requested relief, forced construe scope clause. Court, affirming, stressed whole turned 'upon proper U.S., 279, S.Ct., 356. stands squarely against theory lack present case.14 18 If authoritative courts, organizations face inordinate delays obtaining vindication rights. Where, here, provided arbitration, applicability agreement.15 succeeded court, then go begin proceeding. unlikely add years lengthy required gain relief Board.16 cannot intended place obstacles effective enforcement duties. field, few others, time crucially relief. Amalgamated Clothing America Richman Bros. 348 511, 526, 75 452, 460, 99 600 (dissenting opinion). 19 precedents interparting it, interest efficient administration thus lead deal case. hold error deciding contrary. 20 remaining Appeals, wrong concluding contested gave unilateral plan. conclusion, relied experience relations Act's clear emphasis protection free bargaining. disapprove approach. law abstract definitions unrelated context bargained basic regulatory scheme underlying context. Cox, Legal Nature Collective Bargaining Agreements, 57 Mich.L.Rev. (1958). Nor can we say holding forgone about inaugurated disputed groups workers. And there nothing suggest carefully worked differentials various could invalidated wage.17 21 judgment accordingly reversed remanded directions 22 Reversed remanded. amended, (1), 61 Stat. 140—141, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(5) (1964 ed.). NLRB's order directed latter's request similarly instituted. 'B. mutually attached signing Working Agreement closed *' XIX 'WAIVER OF DUTY TO BARGAIN acknowledge Agreement, each unlimited opportunity make demands proposals subject bargaining, understanding arrived exercise are set forth Agreement. Therefore, life voluntarily unqualifiedly waives covered even though subjects knowledge contemplation either both they negotiated Agreement.' job classifications receive wages: 'quite prior' execution contract, manager proposed 'incentive bonus system' department where worked. representtive, declared Sometime negotiations, again reference fact 'giving thought' incentive pay, unable conclude related eventually appeared illustrations limited discretion Act allows employers concerning employees represented unions, see Katz, 369 736, 82 1107, 230; Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 217, 960, 1320. 301, Management 1947, 156, 185. Square D Co. 332 360. involved arbitration. Note, Use Arbitration Clause, 41 Ind.L.J. 455, 469 (1966). Cloverleaf Div. Adams Dairy 147 1410, 1416 (1964), observation justify, part, course proceeding: '* affirmatively appears much sought invoke practice, existence turns specific provisions, unquestionably encompassed contract's coming us makes reasonably probable settlement put rest controversy manner sufficient effectuate policies Act.' (Footnotes omitted.) Spielberg Mfg. 112 1080 (1955). An earlier version Senate 'Sec. 8. (a) employer— '(6) violate submit Section 8(b)(5) similar limitation organizations. S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Legis. History LMRA 109—111, 114. Neither enacted into concerned possibility conflicting decisions placing questions courts. Cong.Rec. 4033, 1043 (remarks Senator Murray); 6443, 1539. arise one, courts charged 8(a)(1), (2) (3), failure bargain. suggested justify distinguishing ground. precise nature readily apparent. damages breach sought, difficulty establishing amount injury caused action. real status representative, difficult translate damage dollars cents. injunction vindicate rights, problem Norris-LaGuardia faced. issuing barred Union Electrical, Radio Machine (AFL—CIO) General 341 571 (C.A.2d Cir.); 861 Electrical Stone Webster Engineering 163 F.Supp. 894 (D.C.W.D.La.). Sinclair Refining Atkinson, 370 195, 1328, 440; Publihers' New York City Mailers' Six, 317 624 granted, 901, 192, 142, vacated dismissal moot, 376 775, 1132, 82. Whether suits governed law, 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers Lucas Flour 95, 571, 593 open question. Charles Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 514, n. 8, 519, 483. remedy available suit declaratory judgment, assuming circumstances maintainable instant charge, filed July 1963. points two contracts area support here agreements, relevant, fall short substantiating position. two-man accomplished prescribed goals. show leveled differential other, lumber company's head sawyer received plant certain monthly output.

Category: 6