Legal Document

360 U.S. 301 79 Supreme Court Reporter 1179 3 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1243 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.FANT MILLING COMPANY. Number 482. Argued May 20, 1959. Decided June 15, Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O. baron Fisher, Paris, Tex., respondent. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The National Labor Relations Act makes it an unfair labor practice employer to refuse bargain in good faith with representative his employees.1 question presented by this case is extent which Board may, formulating a complaint and finding violation section Act, take cognizance events occurring subsequent filing charge upon based. 2 Pursuant election union was certified 1953 as exclusive bargaining appropriate unit respondent's employees at its plant Sherman, Texas. During ensuing months agents respondent met on several occasions supposed purpose working out collective contract. By 1954, such meetings had taken place, but no agreement been reached. On that date filed Regional Director Board, alleging violated s 8(a)(5) refusing collectively union. Two later advised he issue ground 'it does not appear there sufficient evidence violations warrant further proceedings time.' requested General Counsel review refusal.2 4 In meantime until October 1954 more than dozen were held between representatives No real progress towards reaching made. October, while negotiations still going on, unilaterally put into effect general wage increase without prior notice A few weeks withdrawing recognition would any conferences. 5 Thereafter, January 1955, informed 'upon reconsideration facts circumstances, additional furnished us connection our investigation above matter, we have decided are hereby refusal Complaint respect allegation bargain. * We shall proceed due course.' Later Board's follows: 'With bargain; parties letter dated 24, dismissal portion continuing thereof. All inquiries should be addressed Director.' Five days afterwards issued complaint, 'on or about November 21, 1953, all times thereafter, Respondent did continues *'; 'On 7, Respondent, Union, icre ase those acts 'Respondent engage engaging within meaning Section 8(a), subsection (5) Act.'3 6 agreeing Trial Examiner, refused 'after merely through motions genuine intention trying negotiate Union required provisions Act.' An order accordingly issued. 117 N.L.R.B. 1277.4 expressly unilateral grant although original subject amended charge, properly included complaint. Moreover, largely influenced specific conduct part respondent.5 One member dissented could lawfully made basis Act. 7 Appeals denied petition enforcement. 258 Federal Reporter, 2nd 851, 855. Substantially reasoning dissenting member, court § 10 (b) requires 'that must set up showing *, predicated actions already taken.' (Emphasis original.)6 It 'the faithfully reflect constituting practices charge.'7 8 To attribute so tightly restricted function is, pointed Licorice company versus 309 350, 60 569, 84 L.Ed. 799, consonant basic scheme issues substantially identical here—'whether jurisdiction limited preclude determination (certain employer) involved practices, since both occurred after lodged *.' page 357, 574. Court's resolution unambiguous: 9 'It unnecessary consider now how far statutory requirement condition precedent excludes from matters existing when filed, it. Whatever restrictions requirements may thought place can find language purposes saying precludes dealing adequately related alleged grow them proceeding pending before Board. found prolongation attempt form secure contracts charge. same class continuations pursuance objects. having invoked deal first steps, authority followed consequence taken. think below correctly power treating whole sequence one." 369, 579. present case, Licorice, 'of 'related to' developed one aspect 'while (was) Board.' 11 measured standards applicable pleading private lawsuit. Its motion machinery inquiry. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 318 9, 18, 63 394, 400, 87 responsibility making inquiry, framing Congress has imposed charging party. confine inquiry reduce vehicle vindication rights. Thi wo uld alien created adjudicate controversies advance public interest eliminating obstructions interstate commerce, recognized beginning. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 1, 57 615, 81 893. 12 Once left free make full under broad investigatory power8 discharge duty protecting rights There justification confining precise particularizations For these reasons adhere views expressed Board.9 13 What said imply words Appeals, 'carte blanche expand they might please, ignore altogether.' 856. Here hold only precluded 'dealing prceeding 579, 799. follows proper considered decision.10 14 Reversed. 'Sec. 8(a) employer—* employees, 9(a) (d) section, performance mutual obligation meet reasonable confer wages, hours, other terms conditions employment, negotiation agreement, arising thereunder, execution written contract incorporating reached if either party, compel party agree proposal require concession 29 Code KF62 158(a), Annotated KF65 U5 158(a). here press claim request timely 102.19 Rules Regulations, uncontroverted shows extension time granted. chronology refutes acted matter Counsel. exercised reviewing ordered cease desist refrain interfering union's efforts request, union; post notices. decision clear strongly relied conclusion, e.g.: 'We difficulty determining Respondent's bad throughout protracted negotiations, particularly view effectuation early consultation even Union. find, rather, giving continuing, complete disregard Union's status, provides final insight Union.' 10(b) provides: 'Whenever charged person engaged practice, agent agency designated purposes, cause served stating charges respect, containing hearing thereof, agency, therein fixed, less five serving complaint: Provided, That based six service copy thereof against whom made, unless aggrieved thereby prevented reason armed forces, event six-month period computed day discharge. Any agent, ageny c onducting discretion issuance thereon.' 160(b), 160(b). Judge Cameron wrote prevailing court. Chief Hutcheson separate concurring agreed Cameron's view: 'In short, what happened device injecting entirely new completely unrelated regional director, except heard condemned which, because lack it.' Rives dissented, expressing construction majority seems me excessively technical restrictive, and, sustained, N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions believe will seriously cripple effective enforcement 'Investigatory powers hearings investigations, necessary exercise vested (1) Decumentary evidence; summoning witnesses taking testimony. 'The duly authorized agencies, access to, examination, right being investigated proceeded relates question. application proceedings, forthwith subpenas requiring attendance testimony production application. Within subpena possession control, revoke, whose relate investigation, describe particularity required. administer oaths affirmations, examine witnesses, receive evidence. Such Territory hearing.' 161, 161. 1947 amendments change respective functions addition 'No etc.' See note 6, supra. This limitation extinguishes liability committed urges instruct enforce decline do so. Cf. Pittsburgh S.S. 340 498, 71 453, 95 479. However, state factual summary contained Rives' finds support record whole, enforced 'even though justifiably different choice de novo.' Universal Camera Corporation 474, 488, 456, 465, 456.

Classification Label: 6