Legal Document

350 U.S. 264 76 Supreme Court Reporter 383 100 L.Ed. 285 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF LOUISVILLE, Incorporated Number 79. Argued Jan. 17, 1956. Decided Feb. 27, Mr. David Pacific KF135 P2 Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John K. Skaggs, Jr., Louisville, Ky., respondent. [Syllabus intentionally omitted] Arthur Judge Goldberg, A.F.L.—C.I.O. as amicus curiae with consent of Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 Charging respondent coercion its employees and discrimination against pro-union employees, Local 20 United Brewery Workers, CIO, instituted proceedings before National Labor Relations Board violation §§ 8(a) (1) 8(a)(3) Act, amended, 61 Statutes-at-Large 136, 140, 65 601, 602, 29 States Code Annotated KF65 U5 151 et seq., 158(a)(1, 3), which outlaw such unfair labor practices. Pursuant to this charge, a complaint was issued; at hearing followed, challenged jurisdiction upon ground that union had not satisfied requirements § 9(h) Act. Section provides 'no shall be issued pursuant (an practice) charge made by organization * unless there is on file an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within preceding twelve-month period each officer officers any national international it affiliate constituent unit he member Communist Party affiliated party, does believe in, supports believes in teaches, overthrow Government force illegal unconstitutional methods.' Respondent offered prove, evidence his duties functions, Taylor, Regional Director CIO Kentucky, who admittedly filed non-Communist affidavit, 'officer' meaning 9(h). The rejected contention two grounds: First, 'the compliance status matter administrative determination, one litigated representation proceedings.' 108 N.L.R.B. 490, 491. Second, 'had established collateral proceeding what prove herein, we are satisfied, find, under Board's present 'constitutional' test, proof would fall short substantiating Respondent's Taylor CIO.' 492—493. 2 On merits, found committed practices charged. When sought enforcement decree, Appeals Sixth Circuit, without passing practices, remanded case determination issue tendered claim Taylor's functions constituted him 'officer.' 219 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series 441. We granted certiorari because importance questions raised administration statute. 819, 49. 3 These number: May employer, during course practice hearing, show has complied thereby establish want jurisdiction? (2) Assuming answer question 'yes,' construction 9(h)—viz., 'any person occupying position identified office constitution organization'—proper? CFR, 1955 Supp., 102.13.* 4 answered first affirmative authority versus Highland Park Manufacturing Co., 341 322, 71 758, 95 969. In defendant suit, interpretation 'national organization' agency read language including federations, i.e., AFL CIO. Therefore, required affidavits from these federations. Park's challenge then settled policy employer could raise noncompliance bar practice. held contrary, Cir., 184 98, affirmed decision. 5 distinguishes suggesting here 'employer seeks only fact compliance, distinguished necessity compliance.' genesis distinction comes following Park: 'If were dispute whether C.I.O. documents met statutory resolved favor organizations, different presented.' 325, 760. misconceives significance passage. Both involve scope 9(h), derived language; neither involves inquiry into disputed facts, situation referred Park. Acceptance differentiation between cases theory suggested make law too thin dialectic enterprise. 6 But if overly subtle, reason attempting force, namely, concern need expedite resolution issues their merits. *' Much may said should permitted disrupt delay raising respecting after argument late. 7 event, impediment effectiveness process determining merits serious negligible injecting subsidiary depends opened up latter issue. This brings us question. Our specifically appropriate 'officers' rule so-called 'functional' test. Presumably test require those members effective instruments policies 'officers,' regardless they do fill offices designated organization's constitution. 8 Neither itself nor legislative history attempts definition 'officers.' 'Officers' word familiar usage '(a)fter all, legislation when expressed technical terms addressed common run men therefore understood according sense thing, ordinary man right rely words him.' Addison Holly Hill Fruit Products, 322 607, 618, 64 1215, 1221, 88 1488. normally means hold defined offices. It mean boys back room other agencies invisible government, politics trade-union movement. A accords lay understanding. 102.13. 9 deemed have peculiar connotation intimate affairs, incumbent give meaning, Boston Sand & Gravel company States, 278 41, 48, 49 52, 53, 73 170, integral part statute whose sponsors problems doubtless drawn specialists relations. If case, expertness play. affirm appear farfetched, Hearst Publications, Inc., 111, 130, 851, 860, 1170. some support Board, 9(f), requires unions report specific information Secretary Labor, differentiates 'agents' organizations. 10 conclude criterion both reasonable, indeed compelling, Accordingly, judgment reversed court further proceedings. 11 Reversed remanded. 12 HARLAN took no consideration decision case. qualification practically automatic provision 102.13(b)(3) Rules Regulations: '* where reasonable cause omitted designation purpose evading circumventing filing section act, may, notice, conduct investigation determine facts regard, warrant action persons than incumbents positions will recognized having act.' 102.13(b)(3). interpret application exception wholly control cannot proceeding.

Classification Label: 6