Document: 368 U.S. 502 82 S.Ct. 519 7 L.Ed.2d 483 CHARLES DOWD BOX CO., Inc., Petitioner,v.John F. COURTNEY et al., etc. No. 33. Argued Nov. 7, 1961. Decided Feb. 19, 1962. George H. Mason, Worcester, Mass., for petitioner. David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Section 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act 1947 provides: 2 '(a) Suits violation contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in industry affecting commerce as defined this chapter, or any such organizations, may be brought district court United States having jurisdiction parties, without respect to amount controversy regard citizenship parties.'1 3 The sole question presented by case is whether federal statute operates divest state over suit contract organization. 4 petitioner engaged 1947. Steelworkers America, international union, was collective bargaining representative petitioner's production maintenance employees, organized Local 5158. A few weeks before expiration agreement 1957, negotiations were initiated representatives union with proposals which had submitted new agreement. After number negotiating sessions, 'Stipulation' signed each party, continuing effect many provisions old agreement, but providing wage increases making other changes holidays vacations. terms later embodied draft proposed originally announced its that it would put into covered notified intention terminate these return 'to rates May 18, 1957.' It position acted authority been so advised actually concluded. 5 present action then Superior Court Massachusetts Worcester County respondents, local officers staff International Union. complaint alleged plaintiffs 'fairly adequately represent interests entire membership' 5158, asked judgment declaring there existed valid binding order enjoining company from terminating violating it, accounting damages. Responding complaint, interposed several defenses, among them contention that, reason § Act, no controversy. trial rejected attack upon jurisdiction, determined on merits 'valid parties thereto,' entered money conformity 6 Supreme Judicial affirmed, 341 Mass. 337, 169 N.E.2d 885, expressly ruling has not made courts exclusive arbiters suits commerce. As Chief Wilkins 'We do accept State are jurisdiction. does declare. conferring actions at law appropriate District Courts not, itself, deprivation existing both equity courts. principally relied defendant, Textile Workers Union America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 923, 972, state. In absence clear holding Federal exclusive, we shall make what tantamount abdication hitherto undoubted our own courts.'2 Certiorari granted consider important thus presented. 365 809, 81 699, 690. We agree Commonwealth case, accordingly affirm us. argued, nor could be, speaks exclusivity controversies within statute's purview. On face simply gives certain specified types contracts. even suggest exclusive. provides kind described 'may' courts, they must be. 8 points out, however, held more than jurisdictional—that authorizes fashion, policy national laws, body enforcement agreements ambit. recognized 'state law, if compatible purpose 301, resorted find rule will best effectuate policy,' emphasized '(a)ny applied * absorbed *.' U.S., 457, 918. 9 argued rationale Mills frustrated allowed exercise concurrent purview 301(a). task formulating common area management relations entrusted exclusively said, because participation lead disharmony incompatible concept all-embracing law. Only judiciary, argument goes, possesses familiarity legislation monolithic judicial system necessary proper achievement creative envisioned Mills. An analogy drawn decisions have necessity withdrawing arguably subject National Board.3 10 Whatever matter policy, nothing indicate Congress adopted enacting 301. legislative history enactment nowhere suggests contrary import statutory language, intended deprive party right seek redress tribunal. 11 start premise prevents enforcing rights created Concurrent phenomenon history, cases arising under exception rather rule.4 This Court's approach ousted enunciated Bradley Claflin Houseman, 93 130, 23 L.Ed. 833, remained unmodified through years. 'The general question, can Constitution, treaties States, elaborately discussed, bench published treatises (and) result discussions has, judgment, where excluded express provision, incompatibility nature particular case.' 136. See Robb Connolly, 111 624, 544, 28 542; Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 1, 56—59, 32 169, 177—178, 56 327; Missouri ex rel. St. Louis, B. & M.R. Co. Taylor, 266 200, 45 47, 69 247; Garrett Moore-McCormack Co., 317 239, 245, 63 246, 250, 87 239; Brown Gerdes, 321 178, 188, 64 487, 492, 88 659 (concurring opinion).5 To hold substantial segment their established disregard consistent hospitable acceptance 12 Such construction also particularized behind provision makes basic limit, expand, availability forums organizations. Moreover, explicit evidence encroach 13 represented far-reaching many-faceted effort promote industrial peace encouragement refinement process. outset purposeless unless reasonable assurance negotiated honored. reflects congressional recognition vital importance assuring enforceability agreements. 14 direct antecedent 301 Case bill, H.R. 4908, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., passed Houses Congress, vetoed President 1946. section bill contained substantially same purposes issue case.6 15 considering 1946, manifested complete awareness existence limitations remedies principal motive creation field belief provide only imperfect relief rules against organizations difficult impossible, status unincorporated associations. discussion supporters opponents centered primarily remedies. result, factions collected comprehensive data respecting laws various legal entities. See, e.g., S.Rep.No.1177, Minority Report, pp. 10—14; 92 Cong.Rec. 5412-5415. 16 Senate following year breach unfair practice Board, S. 1126, 80th 1st §§ 8(a)(6), 8(b)(5), well conference, decided enforceable 'Once contract,' conference report stated, 'the should left usual processes Board.' H.R.Conf.Rep.No.510, p. 42. 17 accompanied House Representatives explicitly acknowledged slightly recast version bill. H.R.Rep.No.245, 45. record debates concern adequacy expressed previous Report again discussed relief, alternative means recovery, scope remedy States. 108—109. reproduced verbatim detailed analysis procedural 1946 legislation. S.Rep.No.105, 15—18. 18 implication displace, supplement, thoroughly considered There seems mention once—in debate spokesman Senator Ferguson, stated unequivocally law: 19 'Mr. FERGUSON. President, whatever now-being-considered amendment takes away all adjudicate relation merely says attempt take mere fact I disagree change amendment. 20 MURRAY. But employers bring desire. 21 That correct. does. courts.' 5708. 22 Although contains statement precise relevance Ferguson's remarks tenor confirms like counterpart fill gaps jurisdictional some abolish For example, Ball, one Floor Leaders stated: '(W)e give sue interstate commerce, court, contract. go beyond that. think right, now, unions voluntary associations, great requires service every member very difficult; 5014.7 24 epitomized Report: 'It apparent until jurisdictions, particularly Government, authorize entities, mutual responsibility vitalize collective-bargaining agreements.' 17. obvious did intend remedial measure destroy foundation built. 25 Court, withdraw delineated specific considerations led conclusion: 26 'Congress lay down substantive enforced tribunal competent apply generally parties. went confide primary interpretation application specially constituted prescribed procedure investigation, notice, hearing decision, including pending final administrative order. evidently centralized administration designed procedures obtain uniform avoid diversities conflicts likely variety attitudes toward controversies.' Garner Teamsters, etc., Union, 346 485, 490, 74 161, 98 228. 27 By contrast, violations rejecting proposal practices. Instead, deliberately chose leave law.' implicit choice 'diversities conflicts' occur, less eleven circuits, evolves spoke. necessarily unhealthy prospect consequence historic resolve accommodate traditional functions Court.8 Affirmed. 29 BLACK concurs result. remaining follows: '(b) Any represents chapter whose activities affect bound acts agents. sued entity behalf whom assets, individual his assets. '(c) proceedings deemed (1) maintains office, (2) duly authorized agents acting employee members. '(d) summons, subpena, process officer agent organization, capacity such, constitute '(e) section, determining person 'agent' another responsible acts, performed subsequently ratified controlling.' U.S.C. 185, U.S.C.A. 185. 61 Stat. 156—157. 338—339, 887. pointed out view accord decisions. McCarroll Los Angeles Dist. Council Carpenters, 49 Cal.2d 45, 57—60, 315 P.2d 322, 328—330; Connecticut Division 425, Amalgamated Ass'n Street, Electric Railway Motor Coach Employees, 147 Conn. 608, 164 A.2d 413; Harbison-Walker Refractories Brick Clay AFL-CIO 702, 339 S.W.2d 933 (Ky.Ct.App.); Miller Kansas City Power Light 332 (Mo.App.); Anchor Freight N.Y. Corp. 445, Intern. Broth. A.D.2d 869, 171 N.Y.S.2d 511; Steinberg Mendel Rosenzweig Fine Furs, Misc.2d 611, 167 685; General Automobile, Workers, Ohio App. 139, 153—156, 108 211, 220—222; Lodge 774, Machinists Cessna Aircraft 186 Kan. 569, 352 P. 420; Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Harvey Aluminum, Or., 359 112; Springer Powder Tool Corp., 220 Or. 102, 348 1112; Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n, 1291, 382 Pa. 326, 115 419, 733; Lucas Flour 174, 57 Wash.2d 95, 356 1; Clark Hein-Werner Wis.2d 264, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 317. least two might Association Westinghouse Salaried Employees Elec. Cir., 210 F.2d 623, 629—630, note 16, aff'd 437, 75 488, 510; Plainfield 343, 123 F.Supp. 683, 692 (D.N.J.). San Diego Building Trades Council, Millmen's 2020 Garmon, 236, 79 773, 775. Indeed, arranged limited 1331, civil exceeds sum value $10,000. Houston Moore, Wheat. 25—27, see Federalist (Hamilton). 'Sec. 10. (a) concluded affects said States: Provided, promoting protecting who participates strike interference performance approved employee, lose sections 8, 9, Act: loss cease when he reemployed employer.' Smith, 4281. course Bar questions involved refrain intimating view—whether Norris-LaGuardia applicable impediments free removal suit. applying never 322. matter, yet ruled area. Compare Chauffeurs, Teamsters Helpers 795 Yellow Transit Lines, 282 345, certiorari granted, 364 931, 378, 364, Sinclair Ref. Atkinson, 290 312, 937, 376, 336. And quite obviously problems concerning 1441, 1441. Swift Packing-house 177 Fay American Cystoscope Makers, 278.

Category: 9