Court Opinion

ID: 9453094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:02:02.017248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:30.228850
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
What we hold here is that plaintiffs’ claims are not defeated by either primary jurisdiction of the NLRB over the claim against the union or failure of plaintiffs to press their grievances against the employers to arbitration. Remand is thus called for. For the guidance of the District Court on remand we also point out the insufficiency of the present record to support summary disposition of the ease, and point up complexities with which the District Court, rather than this court, should struggle in the first instance.
I should like to add to the complexities with which Judge Pope has dealt one further aspect of the case which seems relevant to me, and with which I would hope the District Court, with aid of counsel, might concern itself. This, in general, is the scope and source of the collective bargaining agreement — the self-imposed body of law binding upon the association and the union in their dealings with each other. Specifically, I am in doubt as to the nature and function of the joint committees. Is their function purely adjudicatory — the resolution of grievance disputes? Or have they rule-making powers which invest them with authority to take action which then becomes a part of the body of law constituting the collective bargaining agreement? What was the nature of their action in deregistering plaintiffs? Was it rule making, or adjudication?
It seems to me that answers to these questions are relevant to the issues of whether the union “agreed” to deregistration; and of whether, by recognition of the deregistration, the employers violated the agreement as it then existed.