Legal Document

350 U.S. 155 76 Supreme Court Reporter 227 100 L.Ed. 166 LOCAL UNION NO. 25 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS AMERICA, et al., Petitioners,v.The NEW YORK, HAVEN HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. Number 33. Argued Nov. 10, 1955. Decided Jan. 9, 1956. Mr. Stephen Judge D'Arcy, Jr., Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Herbert Burstein, New York City, respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent railroad has, since 1937, engaged in hauling, between Massachusetts, and other points England, loaded trailers type ordinarily hauled over highways by motor carriers. This operation is popularly known as 'piggy-backing.' Trailers to be shipped from Boston are respondent's freight yard employees There they detached tractors driven special devices onto flatcars England Transportation Co., a carrier, which subsidiary The secured employees. 2 Petitioners local teamsters union, one its officers two business agents. virtue collective-bargaining agreements, represents large number drivers helpers certain carriers over-the-road hauling England. Respondent's 'piggy-backing' operations have steadily increased years, with resulting loss work truck drivers. union sought, without success, 1946, again 1949, an agreement cease shipping 'piggy-back.' Having failed these subsequent negotiations dissuade trucking companies participating 'piggy-backing,' petitioner assigned petitioners Norton McCarthy, agents patrol entrance Yard 5 where 'piggy-back' operations. 3 On July 11, 12 14, 1952, McCarthy stopped truck-drawn owned whom had agreements persuaded refrain delivering Employees company were not load previously flatcars. 4 filed suit Superior Suffolk County, seeking permanently enjoin petitioner's conduct and, addition, damages sum $100,000. In amended complaint respondent alleged, among things: '* * individual respondents prevented loading on flat cars enforced boycott against withholding patronage services shippers. 6 'The informed believes that object acts committed set forth paragraphs '8' '9' this was force or require handling transportation products various shippers who employ car service. 7 said intended compel assign members thereby commit unfair labor practice violation National Labor Relations Act; did, fact, result unlawful secondary laws Commonwealth Section 8(b)(4)(A) .'1 8 After hearing, permanent injunction granted appeal, Judicial Massachusetts affirmed. York, N.H. & H.R. versus Jenkins, 331 Mass. 720, 122 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd Series 759. We certiorari determine whether state court jurisdiction petitioners' been pre-empted authority vested Board. Local Union International Brotherhood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers 348 969, 75 533. 9 Resolution question depends upon (1) respondent, subject Railway Act, may avail itself processes N.L.R.B., (2) if do so, it required, circumstances case, seek relief tribunal rather than courts. 10 court, although recognizing principle courts lack alleged practices affecting interstate commerce,2 determined controversy restrain because Management Act's definition 'employer,' interpreted cast doubt ability obtain under Act. 11 expressly excludes anyone 61 Statutes-at-Large 137, 158, 29 United States Code KF62 § 152(2), Annotated KF65 U5 152(2).3 It course true employer-employee relationships railroads such governed Act,4 passed before either Act Neither latter Acts tread ground covered clear neither nor their carry grievances another N.L.R.B. resolution. But does follow precluded aid Board unrelated relations. has maintained throughout entire litigation there no dispute found way concerned policy, any claim interfered manner whatsoever empowered issue complaints whenever 'it charged' person proscribed practice. 10(b). Under Board's Rules Regulations charge 'any person.'5 think Congress, excluding Act' statutory carved out railroads' were, are, we so doing Congress divest controversies otherwise within competence solely complaining party. Furthermore, excluded 'person,' entitled protection kind 8(b)(4)(A). interpretation permits harmonious effectuation three distinct congressional objectives: provide orderly peaceful procedures protecting rights employers, public disputes promote full, free flow commerce, expressed 1(b) maintain traditional separate treatment (3) minimize 'diversities conflicts likely variety attitudes toward controversies.' Garner Chauffeurs 776, 346 485, 490, 161, 166. 13 contends, however, even required case protected prohibited 8(b)(4) As noted earlier, violations Whether violated whether, now claims, not, is, course, determine. Even come 7, State conduct. event, clearly settled Court's recent decision Weber Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 468, 481, 480, 488: 14 'But moving party alleges practices, facts reasonably bring sections prohibiting conduct, federal deemed afforded must decline deference selected determining issues first instance.' 15 therefore hold presented brings whose exclusive, remedy 16 judgment reversed. 17 Reversed. provides: '(b) shall organization agents— '(4) engage in, induce encourage employer strike concerted refusal employment use, manufacture, process, transport, handle goods, articles, materials, commodities perform services, thereof is: (A) forcing requiring self-employed join using, selling, handling, transporting, dealing producer, processor, manufacturer, person; *.' 141, 158(b)(4) (A). 74 98 228; 480. Sec. 2. 'When used Act— '(2) term 'employer' includes acting agent employer, directly indirectly, but include wholly Government corporation, Federal Reserve Bank, political subdivision thereof, corporation association operating hospital, part net earnings inures benefit private shareholder individual, time time, (other when employer), capacity officer organization.' 44 577, amended, 45 151, 151. CFR, 1955 Cum.Supp., 102.9. defines 'person' follows: "Sec. When usd "(1) more individuals, organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees bankruptcy, receivers."

Classification Label: 9