Legal Document

382 U.S. 181 86 Supreme Court Reporter 327 15 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 254 The HANNA MINING COMPANY et al., Petitioners,v.DISTRICT 2, MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, al. Number 7. Argued Oct. 12, 1965. Decided Dec. 6, [Syllabus from pages 181-183 intentionally omitted] John or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Hanninen, McCreary Hinslea & Ray, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners. Lee Pressman, New York City, respondents. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 present controversy once again brings before troublesome question where lies line between permissible and federally preempted state regulation union activities. I. 2 Petitioners ('Hanna') are four corporations whose integrated fleet Great Lakes vessels carriers cargo in interstate foreign commerce is operated by one four, Hanna Mining Company. respondent District Marine Engineers Beneficial Association ('MEBA')1 represented licensed marine engineers Hanna's under a collective bargaining agreement terminating on July 15, 1962. According to Hanna, while negotiations new contract continued during August 1962, majority informed written petitions that they did not wish be MEBA. then declined negotiate further until MEBA's status was established secret ballot. Without acquiescing this proposal questioning any employee signatures petitions, MEBA responded September picketing ships unloading at dock Duluth, Minnesota, with signs giving ship's name, stating unfairly refused MEBA, indicating no dispute existed other employer. Because picketing, workers day after unload ship. From 12 shipping ended winter, similarly picketed ports, including Superior, Wisconsin. 3 turned first National Labor Relations Board. On it petitioned Regional Director hold representation election among prove disprove status. petition dismissed end stated ground were 'supervisors' § 2(11) Act,2 automatically excluded Act's definition 'employees' 2(3),3 so proceedings 9 warranted;4 same reason, Board November overturn decision.5 As second measure, filed charges Minneapolis, alleging had violated 8(b)(4)(B) Act,6 inducing work stoppages dockers Duluth through improper secondary pressure. In October, General Counsel sustained dismissal December, conduct sites investigated exceed bounds lawful Board's standards.7 third last appeal came 27, when accusing organizational recognitional 8(b)(7) Act.8 charge October next two months affirmed because seeking represent rather than fell outside section.9 4 Winter brought an both several but navigation season opened spring 1963 pickets more appeared. After occurred Wisconsin, suit June 24, 1963, Wisconsin circuit court. complaint affidavits alleged docks Northern Railway Company Superior manner as 1962 aim forcing its unwilling engineers; employers refusing render service prayed injunctive relief against berthed attempt impose engineers. Circuit lack jurisdiction over subject matter. April 1964 decision. 23 Wis.2d 433, 127 North Western Reporter, 2nd 393. While agreeing could deemed illegal law,10 court held arguably §§ federal labor Act within exclusive marked out San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen's Union, Local 2020 versus Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775. light language Garmon Counsel's foreclose possibility preempting violation, even assuming mirrored Duluth. We invited views States, 379 942, 85 439, granted certiorari, 380 941, 1022, 13 961, now reverse remand. II. 5 rules preemption law, emerging our decision, should briefly summarized: general, State may regulate 'protected 7, prohibited 8' Act, see U.S., 244—246, 780; legislative purpose dictate certain activity 'neither protected nor prohibited' privileged regulation, cf. 245, 779. For reasons follow, we believe decision supervisors removes case most opportunities preemption. 6 When 1947 amended exclude supervisory critical 'employees,' 2(3), followed many provisions employing pivotal term would cease operate focus concern. Most obviously, 7 longer bestows upon employees rights engage self-organization, bargaining, concerted activities11 umbrella 8 amended, 61 Statutes-at-Large 140, 29 Code KF62 158 (1964 ed.). See Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co., Cir., 169 Federal 571. Accordingly, designed secure organization recognition cannot otherwise. Compare Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Union 639, 362 274, 279, 80 706, 709, 710. Correspondingly, situations which can arguably, fewer if being organized recognition. There breach 8(b)(7), curtailing there exist forbidden objective requiring organization. Nor advance argument unsuccessfully urged 639 8(b)(1)(A), 141, 158(b)(1)(A) ed.), condemns restraint coercion exercising their right organize bargain collectively. Even though such efforts unionize respects immediately relevant it, arises whether Congress nonetheless desired peaceful facets these remain free well authority. 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs Helpers Morton, 377 252, 258—260, 84 1253, 1257—1259, 280. Arguing indeed powerless respect, pitches chiefly amendment 'employee' concurrent enactment 14(a) 151, 164(a) provides part '(n)othing herein shall prohibit individual employed supervisor becoming remaining member * *.' It contended section signify policy laissez faire toward ousting authority and, particularly, allow injunction obliterate opportunity unions expressly reserved. This broad fails utterly history, Committee reports reveal Congress' propelling intention relieve compulsion law countenance employees.12 Whether legislators fully realized method achieving result incidentally freed supervisors' limitations newly enacted 8(b) wholly clear, certainly made considered generally organizing. portion quoted above, some history suggests meant immunize all only make 'clear amendments act do joining S.Rep.No.105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., Page 28; H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 510, 60 ('(T)he provision (§ 14(a)) included presumably abundance caution.'). However, itself intended also clear unions, have application facts; minority extract force pressures decidedly sine qua non limitation nonsupervisor attests. phase has been settled 'with unclouded legal significance,' 246, 780, preclude arguable discussed. statement accompanying refusal order does resolve clarity necessary avoid contend erred determination, abstract difficulty statutory channel judicial review Hotel Employees 255, Restaurant Bartenders International Leedom, 358 99, 150, 143 (equity action obtain election). usual deference expertise applying terms particular facts assures event respected high percentage instances, diminished risk interference justify use doctrine thwart bound legitimate score almost cases. III. 10 A basis preemption, adopted Court, exerted pressure violating 8(b)(4)(B). appears banishing inevitably impinges might 'primary' violate 8(b)(4)(B)13—facets never specified those ignore time, location, common situs picketing. Sailors' Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 N.L.R.B. 547. will appear, violation exists proof lives up allegations; further, interests normally justifying absent case. 11 claim rests, course, finding declining issue respect credit Court's comment 'refusal file charge' dispositions 'which define nature significance.' 245—246, 780. allows interpretation, take apply refusals illuminated explanations squarely activity. 'final authority, behalf Board, investigation issuance complaints,' 3(d) 139, 153(d) ed.) his pronouncements context entitled great weight. inability charging party contest adverse courts, Hourihan 91 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 201 187, sure create slight courts proceed basis, too minimal deserve taking ruling face value, stresses concerned 1963. Yet accompanied information ports Superior. said conducted letter appeared Act. n. supra. And intervened fall resumption port offered remained significant picket employed, location pickets, pickets' general behavior. If furnished, chance sought enjoined conceals seems remote indeed. Additionally, present, central served endangered when, instance this, regime Cf. Incres S.S. company Maritime Workers 372 83 611, 557. importantly, determines, already shown, none middle range impliedly withdrawn control.14 Consequently, greatest threat guards, State's prohibition indicates must unhampered.15 14 presence permit afford complete protection advanced State. Since primary employer situs, proviso severely inhibits reach volatile core conduct, impact follows mere situs. Section provide full rendered inapplicable ruling. Thus, far view belongs wherever offer duplicate relief, limited facts.16 concluding preempt quench case, retreat Garmon. Rather, consider neither policies extension facts, producing untoward results noted itself. 446, 393, 399. 16 judgment reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. 17 ordered. 18 Judgment directions. 19 BRENNAN, concurring. 20 N Immigration Nationality Decisions agree evince congressional aimed organizing securing employer's union. here, however, aspects likewise precluded 21 states '(t)hat nothing contained clause (B) construed unlawful, otherwise strike picketing.' (Emphasis supplied.) thus provided unlawful merely having aspects, italicized words leave undisturbed whatever Ordinarily occurs not, regulated Act; think assumption occur, underlies strong enough support conclusion preempted.* 22 true power 'activities' which, is, construction, 'activity.' But incidental alternative regulatory void plainly assumed exist. context, distinguish former, although latter, effect curbs choice consistent meaning, since common-situs finds either statute. much addressed respondents officers, agents, representatives what applies equally them. 2(11), 138, 152(11) gives functional 'supervisor.' 137, 152(3) 'term include 9, 143, 159 pertinently subsection (c) entertained elections ordered determine 'the representative defined (a) section'; '(r)epresentatives designated selected unit unit' purposes. 'appeal makes affirmative distinguished appropriate inappropriate, concerning exists.' pronouncement clearer, parties affirms refuses disturb Director's explicit finding. 8(b)(4)(B), 73 542, 158(b)(4)(B) unfair practice agents: '(4)(i) in, induce encourage person engaged industry affecting course employment transport, handle goods, articles, materials, commodities perform services object thereof is— '(B) handling, transporting, dealing products producer, processor, manufacturer, doing business person, recognize unless certified Provided, That office part: '(T)he evidence revealed conformed Moore Dock standards *. Furthermore, ostensibly dispute.' 544, 158(b)(7) provides, excluding portions exceptions here relevant, agents 'an employees, accept select organization' agent seeks certification. second, clarifying 'Our disposition predicated solely Union's proscribed Act.' Vogt, Incorporated Brotherhood 695, 270 Wis. 315, 321a, 71 359, 74 749, aff'd sub nom. 695 Inc., 354 284, 77 1166, 1347. 157 refrain from, mentioned Summarizing measure personnel, Senate Report stated: bill prevent anyone recognizing foremen. relieves who national local agency accord front management anomalous employees.' 5. H.R.Rep.No.245, Pages 13—17. By contrast, sometimes offensive restrained remedy related province. See, e.g., Youngdahl Rainfair, 355 131, 78 206, upholding violence setting aside reached Aside answered, find apposite holding award damages striking requesting struck Morton premised fact come ban fixed 303(a) Management 545, 187(a) economic sphere interest especially pervasive. contrast involving wielded supervisors, corner where, occupation minimum peak. Hattiesburg Council Broome 126, 1156, 172, cited us illustrate There, union's law. urging picketing's possible Solicitor suggested 'lawful picketing' section. Memorandum, Michelman, Power To Govern Concerted Employee Activities, Harv.L.Rev. 641, 652—653 (1961) (citations omitted): '(A) enjoin thought practice. reason that, despite court's contrary belief, may, matter privileged.' Interlake 370 173, 82 1237, 418, overturned 8(b)(4)(B); counter-argument group 'labor 8(b), pointed Unlike (4)(B) tried; quite apart consideration, 'employees'—another point recently decided Board—complete available 8(b)(7). 182—183, 1242—1243. argued supports scope broader ordinarily here.

Classification Label: 9