Legal Document

441 U.S. 463 99 Supreme Court Reporter 1826 60 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 360 Maurice SMITH et al.v. ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1315, al. Number 78-1223. April 30, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 In grievance proceedings initiated by employees of the Arkansas State Highway Department, Commission will not consider a unless employee submits his written complaint directly to designated employer representative. The District for Eastern found that this procedure denied union representing ability submit effective grievances on their behalf and therefore violated First Amendment. 459 F.Supp. 452 (1978). Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed.1 585 Federal Reporter, 2nd 876 We disagree with these holdings; finding no constitutional violation in actions or its individual members, we grant certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. 2 Amendment protects right an speak freely, advocate ideas, associate others, petition government redress grievances. And it associations engage advocacy members. NAACP versus Button, 371 415, 83 328, 9 405 (1963); Railroad Presidents Conf. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 127, 81 523, 5 464 (1961). is prohibited from infringing upon guarantees either general prohibition against certain forms advocacy, supra, imposing sanctions expression particular views opposes, e. g., Brandenburg Ohio, 395 444, 89 1827, 23 430 (1969); Garrison Louisiana, 379 64, 85 209, 13 125 (1964). 3 But substitute national labor relations laws. As Seventh recognized Hanover Township Federation Teachers Community School Corp., 457 456 (1972), fact procedures followed public bypassing dealing members might well be unfair practices were federal statutory law applicable hardly establishes such violate Constitution. "provides guarantee speech persuade effective." Id., at 461. surely can freely openly, he protected retaliation doing so. See Pickering Board Education, 391 563, 574-575, 88 1731, 1737-1738, 20 811 (1968); Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 247, 231 (1960). does impose any affirmative obligation listen, respond or, context, recognize association bargain it.2 4 case before us, there claim has joining together union, persuading others do so, advocating ideas. There is, short, discrimination proscribed Rather, simply refuses act when filed rather than directly. Were employers as subject same laws private employers, refusal constitute practice. may assume would and, further, tends impair undermine if only slightly3—the effectiveness economic interests Cf. Township, supra. 6 type "impairment" one Constitution prohibits. Far taking steps prohibit discourage membership association, all done challenged conduct ignore union. That free do. 7 reversed. 8 It so ordered. Mr. Justice POWELL took part consideration decision case. 10 MARSHALL, dissenting. 11 Now deciding vital questions without even plenary hearing. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions dissent. 12 This long held unions secure legal representation Mine Workers Illinois Bar Assn., 389 217, 221-222, 353, 355-356, 19 426 (1967); Trainmen Virginia ex rel. Bar, 377 1, 8, 84 1113, 1117, (1964); see Transportation Union Michigan, 401 576, 91 1076, 28 339 (1971); Based precedent Arkansas' recognition employees' organize join Potts Hay, 229 Ark. 830, 315 South Western 826 (1958), concluded also encompasses respondent union's file If under refuse entertain submitted union-salaried attorney, immediately apparent why should entitled reject asserted itself. decline summary reversal cavalierly disposes substantial issues.* suit was brought Employees, Local eight after refused two facts cases are dispute: "[E]ach sent letter explaining nature requesting process behalf. each forwarded employee's employer's representative included own stating represented decided set up meeting. did letter. Thereafter 1315 subsequent meetings representative." F.2d, 877. Commissioners Director Department named defendants, petitioners Court. 456, 461 (CA7 1972), quoting Indianapolis Education Assn. Lewallen, 72 Labor Relations Reference Manual (BNA) KF3315 L38 2071, 2072 1969) (" 'there duty collectively exclusive bargaining agent' "). represent representatives filing grievance. n. thus limited requirement complaints, considered, must initially employee. appears bar, however, securing form advice anyone else. Virginia, * Moreover, seems me especially inappropriate means resolving conflicts between Courts Compare Employees Smith, (CA8 1978), 1972).

Classification Label: 2