Legal Document

375 U.S. 335 84 Supreme Court Reporter 363 11 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 370 Walter HUMPHREY, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.C. W. MOORE, al. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO 89, Petitioner, versus C. MOORE Nos. 17, 18. Argued Oct. 16, 1963. Decided Jan. 6, 1964. Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, See 376 935, 697. David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., and Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. John Y. Brown, Louisville, Ky., Newell N. Fowler, Memphis, Tenn., respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The issue here is whether Kentucky Appeals properly enjoined implementation decision a joint employer-employee committee purporting to settle certain grievances in accordance with terms collective bargaining contract. determined relative seniority rights employees two companies, Dealers Transport Company Tennessee, E & L Detroit, Michigan. We are that court erred we reverse its judgment. 2 Part business each these companies was transportation new automobiles from assembly plant Ford Motor Kentucky. In face declining resulting several factors, were informed by there room only one them Louisville operation. After considering matter some time, made arrangements: would sell 'secondary' authority out purchase price be nominal sum roughly equal cost effecting transfer authority; also serve points Mississippi Louisiana; initial Lorain, Ohio, along equipment terminal facilities. purpose arrangements concentrate activities more northerly area those southern zone. transfers subject approval regulatory agencies. 3 both represented same union, General Drivers, Warehousemen Helpers, Local Union Number 89. Its president, Paul Priddy, as result inquiry his assistant, understood transaction between involved no trades, sales, or exchanges properties but withdrawal at direction Company. He consequently advised their situation precarious. When layoffs began three filed claiming lists should 'sandwiched' taken n they had enjoyed L. placed before local committee, Priddy assistant meanwhile advising 'nothing worry about' since contract right under circumstances. 4 covered multi-employer, multi-local union unit negotiated on behalf employers Automobile Transporters Labor Division unions National Truckaway Driveaway Conference. Almost identical contracts executed company appropriate union. According Article 4, § 'seniority shall prevail' 'any controversy over employees' standing such submitted grievance procedure. * *' Section 5 article, central significance here, follows: 'In event Employer absorbs another private, common carrier, party merger lines, absorbed affected thereby mutual agreement Unions involved. Any respect procedure.' 6 7 called first up employer and, if not settled, where have votes. Failing settlement majority vote members could Joint Conference Committee upon which overall an number representatives. Decisions 'final conclusive binding involved.' However, unable reach arbitration provided that: (d) 'It agreed all matters pertaining interpretation any provision this Agreement, requested Union, must full Committee, after listening testimony sides, make decision.' Other provisions stated it 'the intention parties resolve questions agreement' 'to bound agrees interpretations enforcement Agreement.' 8 directly endorsed 'Deadlocked Detroit interpretation' signatures president representative committee. Later, however, having been fully nature decided recommend dovetailed employed based shop stewards who meeting so immediately prior opening hearing. hearing company, representing employees, thereupon 'in particularly sub-sections 5' 'be sandwiched master boards using presently constituted dates contained therein *.' 9 Since older most than entailed layoff large provide openings drivers. 10 Respondent Moore, himself other then brought class action state praying injunction against prevent being carried out. Damages asked alternative count added defendants amendment complaint.1 complaint alleged relied represent them, assured nothing about precedent industry when over, do displace original acquiring company; further deliberately 'deadlocked' learned time favored dovetailing lists. Priddy's actions, went on, deceiving plaintiffs position left without representation Committee.' decision, according complaint, 'contrived, planned Priddy' 'has deceived failed completely said whose 'false deceitful action' 'connivance L' threatened jobs employees. International 'conspired assisted defendant, bringing charged arbitrary capricious, contrary existing practice violative hearing, trial denied temporary permanent injunction.2 Commonwealth reversed granted injunction, judges dissenting. 356 South Western Reporter, 2nd 241. view court, application circumstances case came into play absorbing hire company. clause deal seniority, employment. Therefore, said, because question employing drivers 'arbitrable' section. Appeals, hold even otherwise, stand antagonistic interests sets advocate. inadequate context itself essentially neutral. Against backdrop, erroneous board became 'arbitrary natural justice.' cases cited upon. petition 17 18, 371 966, 967, 83 549, 537. I. 12 issues concerning jurisdiction courts governing law involved, well outset elaborate statement enforce contract, accurate o servation far concerned. 13 First, Moore challenges power dovetail absorption within meaning s because, below held, section seniority. His neither nor has beyond delegated precise 5. exceeded making did, nullity impending discharge breach 14 Second, claims obtained dishonest conduct duty fair cannot valid excuse undoubted broad exclusive agent negotiation administration accompanied responsibility scope, representation. Syres Oil Workers Intern. 350 892, 76 152, 100 L.Ed. 785, reversing Cir., 223 Federal 739; Brotherhood Railroad Trainmen Howard, 343 768, 72 1022, 96 1283; Tunstall Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, 323 210, 65 235, 89 187; Steele N.R. Co., 192, 226, 173. 'By selection representative, become fairly impartially.' Wallace Corporation Relations Board, 248, 255, 238, 241, 216. agent's obligation requires (it) honest effort members, hostility any. powers 'subject always complete good faith honesty exercise discretion.' Huffman, 345 330, 337—338, 73 681, 686, 97 1048. 15 job rights, deceitfully connived deprive others employment prevented latter espousing cause rival group indicated men protected These allegations sufficient charge process settling agreement. 16 Both international dishonesty, one-half votes cast representatives affiliated international. No fraud employer; except improper dominated retain own inference considered dispute decide. Moreover, award implemented filing put notice dishonesty procuring Committee. circumstances, proved, effectively undermine basis Moore's discharge.3 For reasons arising 301 Management Act4 controlled federal law, Textile America Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972, though court. 174, Teamsters, etc. Lucas Flour 369 95, 82 571, 593; Smith Evening News Assn., 195, 267, 246. Although differing views violation unfair labor Act,5 necessary us difference here. Even is, arguably may be, practice, violate therefore cognizance courts, supra, subject, course, applicable law.6 18 now come merits case. II. 19 If assume Committee's circumscribed 57 open review, measurably advanced. our reasonably meant what assumed meant. There did seniority.8 20 Prior transporting cars Afterwards, business, clearly unilateral preceded long negotiation. L's engage sold Dealers. done city henceforth While sale tangible assets location, concluded 21 It permissible conclude dealt Mergers, sales absorptions commonplace events. unusual agreements especially transaction.9 Following events, will probably include former other; recurring call available work concern. Jobs, stake; solve just problems designed. commensurate purposes. 22 Seniority overriding importance, major functions determine gets keeps job. Here resolving 'absorbed,' 'affected' absorption. Certainly employees; drivers, determine, Dealers, business. very probably, therefore, intended employee carry it, usually would. unilaterally employee, might decide none, excluding formerly done. Or fill additional select regard length service insi t grant suit emasculated. 23 gave jobs. entitled integrate rational basis, either unique arbitrary. On contrary, familiar frequently equitable solution inevitably conflicting arise wake occurred here.10 empowered make. 24 Neither find adequate support record complaint's attack integrity procedures led decision. later supported substantial evidence fraud, conduct. early assurances founded, true; acting information him, received him think trade exchange 'absorption' bring play. sections he thought, protect fellow drivers.11 Consistent view, appeared unfavorable them. pending acquisition operating involvement locations transaction, Ultimately took apply insufficient proof intentional misleading part And understand found otherwise. 25 much groups opposed But ready taking individuals whom represents supporting another. Huffman 1048, agreeing granting enhanced particular otherwise occurred. 'Inevitably differences manner degree affect individual classes mere existence does invalid. satisfaction hardly expected. A wide range reasonableness allowed statutory serving represents, Id., 338, 686. Just free sift wholly frivolous clog process, take disputes. Nor neutralized chiefly Conflict fact. To remove gag surely weaken processes. 26 As shows, honestly, discrimination. L, fewer One going suffer. hired previously enjoyed. Inevitably hurt someone. By choosing acted relevant considerations, capricious factors. shows 27 remaining contention. oppose deprived hearing? obviously aware locked struggle expense given every opportunity position. Thus reality narrow one. facts companies. initially so, integrated request continue until secure yet suggested way theory differently represented. 'idle speculation different presented.' agree. 28 not, proved agent. reached proceedings agreement, final parties, says is. Riss 372 517, 789, 918. 29 remanded inconsistent opinion. 30 ordered. 31 Reversed remanded. 32 GOLDBERG, BRENNAN joins, concurring result. 33 N Dec. Immigration Nationality concur judgment holding 'Moore *,' reversed. Supra. agree 301(a) Act, 61 Statutes-at-Large 156, Code KF62 185(a). my rather claim treated employee's union's representation—a derived amended, 136, 141 seq. Cf. Association Machinists Central Airlines, Inc., 682, 956, 67. 34 expressly refer Act source action. substance form govern, look statutes claim. 35 correctly describes alleging violated because: (1) lists, (2) 36 ground, seems me, sustains L.M.R.A. mutually acceptable was, challenged dissenting ground contractual settlement. true Court, series decisions dealing arbitrations, recognized arbitrator defined agreement.1 'For arbitration,' Steelworkers Warrior Gulf Navigation 574, 582, 80 1347, 1353, 1409, 'is required submit submit.' touchstone arbitrator's powers. jointly limited. modify, amend, supplement They equally free, '(t)he procedure continuous process,' falling scope 581, 1352. case, example, gone arbitration, mergerabsorption applied. absence clause, contracting parties—the multiemployer unit2 union—were amending achieve entering presence merger-absorption restrict applying, interpreting, ending contract.3 too many unforeseeable contingencies relationship justify words duties. 37 principles applied during entered 'supplementary providing credit pre-employment military veterans, type 334, n. 684. adversely affected, supplementary declared invalid obtain injunctive relief doubt injured agreement'; subjected rankings altered. Despite change held limit jointly, collectively, affecting rights. 38 necessarily follows dispute, deemed requiring amendment, plainly authority. tested parties' interpretation. remain flexible amend interpret coequal. 39 i Court's recognition U.S., S.Ct., 1352, confines assert, does, can strict 40 turn second viz., 301(a). This apparent where, '(n)o Ante, 343. 41 mean remedy read breaching implied responsibilities conferred statutes. supra (National Act); (Railway Act). gravamen employer's express charged. obeisance requirements Westinghouse Salaried Employees Electric Corp., 348 437, 75 489, 99 510. 42 extended willfully participated arose discrimination race, classification 'irrelevant' observed: 43 '(I)t enough present purposes say craft wages, hours working conditions among discriminations differences.' 203, 232. 44 distinguished classifications 'relevant authorized performed, (and) competence skill Ibid. Where involves differentiation classification—in following amalgamation units—and duty, collecti e collateral merely alone indeed, need strain, convert 45 willfulness claimed complaint' 'considered decide.' predicated rationale complaint,' 'put indeed neutral presented overlooks employer-party representatives—acting L—fully dispute.4 Furthermore, participating misconduct restrained putting effect notice' dishonesty. Such rule penalize encourage groundless charges frustrating settlements. Finally, difficult conceive how transform employer. 46 summary, then, stated, treat Syres-Steele So nevertheless conclude, 'there agent,' ante, 351, sought. 47 written seem point. conviction fashioning bargaining, utmost importance reflect realities industrial life process. doctrines evolved contexts adapted Of individual. forgotten, fact concerted bargain collectively. Consequently, understandable desire emasculate placing undue restraints parties. Similarly, safeguarding agent, recognize whenever set aside order vindicate individual's interest lightly remedies insure constituents. trial-type standards conceptions vested hinder endeavor adapt exigencies economic life. separately believe analysis runs principles. 48 DOUGLAS. 49 Brother GOLDBERG litigation brough 50 HARLAN, part. 51 insofar relates undoubtedly general proposition alter employer, challenge purported validity allegedly autorized composition multiunion-multi-employer possess changes engaged acquiesced departure see reason why individually step shoes maintain himself. 52 petitioners' rests proceeding, expressed (ante, 355—358) (except reserve maintainable asserted representation). conclusion gives rise implicit brings face-to-face question: Does preemption doctrine, San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775, lie 301, 246? Short deciding question, dispose simply saying shown instance. situation, Garmon preclude require defer primary Board. 53 important one, carrying ramifications extending benefit laws. end extent authority, reargument issue, invite Board brief oral argument question. Retail Clerks Schermerhorn, 373 746, 757, 1461, 1464, 678; 96, 219. named quashed dismissed it. denial ordered Appeals. Thereafter permanent. suggests, rather, finally settled 'Suits organization commerce chapter, organizations, district amount citizenship parties.' Compare, 294, Bro. 317 746 (C.A.2d Cir.), Miranda Fuel 140 N.L.R.B. 181 (1962); 326 172 Cir.). Cox, Duty Fair Representation, Villanova L.Rev. 151, 172—175. contended preempted ruled appears abandoned says, relying 'may suits hostilely discriminates them.' note sued enjoin declare void Dismissal affirmed contentions lower Cosmark Struthers Wells 194 Atlantic 325 (Pa. 1963). petitioners urge entertain this, not. merit clear courts. Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483. consider problem posed omitted provision. act proceed deadlocked level pursuant which, 7, 'after sides.' recited 5, contention (d)—providing Committee—makes inescapably means disputes Reconciliation provisions, ultimately Our applicability infra, renders accommodation unnecessary. footnote 10, infra. Kent Civil Aeronautics 204 263 Cir. 1953); Keller Teamsters 249, Commerce Clearing House Cases 17,119 (D.C.W.D.Pa.1961); Pratt Wilson Trucking 214 Ga. 385, 104 Eastern 915 (1958); Walker Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, 142 N.J.Eq. 588, 453 (1948); re Telegraph American Communications (Decisions War 1944) L.R.R.M. 1623. Colbert Trainmen, 206 (C.A.9th Wheland 271 122 (C.A.6th 1959); Hardcastle Greyhound 303 182 1962); Fagan Pennsylvania R. 173 F.Supp. 465 (D.C.M.D.Pa.1959). 'Integration ordinarily accomplished Kahn, Problems Business Industrial Review 361, 378. rely rider protecting closed down. dispositive, E.g., Manufacturing 564, 1343, 1403; 1409; Enterprise Wheel Car 593, 1358, 1424. states 343, 3. overlooks, throughout acknowledged unit, honestly including 357. specifically envisioned '(d) out, Agreement. 339. 2, supra.

Classification Label: 6