Legal Document

398 U.S. 25 90 Supreme Court Reporter 1547 26 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 21 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.RAYTHEON COMPANY et al. Number 440. Argued Feb. 26, 1970. Decided May 18, Richard G. Kleindienst, Deputy Atty. Gen. of States, for petitioner. Charles or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Resnick, Washington, D.C., respondents. Opinion the by Mr. Justice MARSHALL, announced STEWART. This case was brought here on certiorari National Labor Relations Board review dismissal its petition enforcement a cease-and-desist order forbidding certain conduct Raytheon Company found to be in violations § 8(a)(1) Act, 29 Code KF62 158(a) (1). After it lost representation election conducted February 4, 1965, International Union Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL—CIO, filed objections unfair labor practice charges, both based pre-election misconduct company. On October 19, an complaint issued alleging 8(a)(1). The proceedings that charge were consolidated with case, hearing held before Trial Examiner. Thereafter, 5, 1966, rendered decision, ordering new company cease desist anti-union activity. 8, 1968, pursuant 10(e) 160(e), Appeals Ninth Circuit seeking order. answered, urging denied merits ground moot because second had been interim. briefed argued merits, called attention court yet third this time result (a majority vote 'no union') certified Board. question whether intervening mooted all sides; and, authority earlier decision General Engineering, Incorporated versus NLRB, 311 Federal Reporter, 2nd 570 (C.A.9th Cir. 1962), dismissed brief per curiam. 408 681 1969). We granted certiorari, 396 900, 215, 24 177 (1969), we reverse. 1 As stated Appeals, upon which 'that since (it was) has result.' Thus, without more, followed Engineering 'makes portions under relate case.' F.2d, at 572. cannot agree automatic effect accorded later valid rather find correct decisions two circuits have specifically refused adopt reasoning case. NLRB Metalab-Labcraft, 367 471 (C.A.4th 1966); Marsh Supermarkets, Inc., 327 109 (C.A.7th 1963); cf. Clark Bros., 163 373 (C.A.2d 1947). 2 In Mexia Textile Mills, 339 563, 567—568, 70 826, 828, 94 L.Ed. 1067 (1950), held: 3 'We think plain from cases employer's compliance does not render cause moot, depriving opportunity secure appropriate court. * A imposes continuing obligation; is entitled resumption barred decree. Act require play hide-and-seek those guilty practices.' 4 Properly viewed, holding controls present certification are simply evidence complied during pendency election. however, designed merely protect particular organizational campaign. It employees exercise their rights, protection affected organization chosen immediate rerun than await 5 Undoubtedly, as recognized Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 331 416, 428, 67 1274, 1281, 91 1575 (1947), there situations where proceeding will become party can establish 'there no reasonable expectation wrong repeated.' W. T. Grant Co., 345 629, 633, 73 894, 897, 97 1303 (1953). But such Nothing record shows specific acts complained repeated gives any assurance they future. Cf. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 199, 203, 89 361, 364, 344 (1968); Wirtz Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers 389 463, 474—475, 88 643, 649—650, 19 705 (1968). 6 Board, established Congress primary responsibility public interest area, see Judge Rutter-Rex Mfg. 258, 417, 405 determined engaged illegal activities remedial for. Under these circumstances, (with possible sanction contempt violations) absence merits. '(I)f Board's justified, enforced means insuring future elections may supra, 111. 7 Court, essentially admits judgment below 'based mootness classical sense' instead attempts support other grounds. says—and agree—that courts appeals charged usual granting denying orders. Universal Camera Corporation 340 474, 71 456, 95 456 (1951). From proposition fact entire urges 'should construed determination, discretion vested Section basis including subsequent certification, inappropriate.' 8 need pause consider determination would proper facts simple answer did pass enforcement. While is, course, free argue remand either violation, if so marginal justify judicial enforcement, both, questions first instance. how might regarded erroneously concluded proceedings. 9 dismissing reversed remanded consideration 10 ordered. 11 Judgment remanded.

Classification Label: 6