Court Opinion

ID: 9422498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:02:55.455461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:37.166532
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Clark,
concurring in the result.
Four months after entry of the Commission’s order Congress enacted § 8 (e) as an amendment to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. (Supp. Ill) § 158 (e). Since the language of that section raised serious questions as to the legality of the unions’ “hot cargo” pressures, which in turn raised questions as to any continuation of the “substantial disruption” in service, it appears to me that the District Court should have vacated the order and remanded the case to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the likelihood of changed circumstances. The grant of permanent certification to a new carrier in an area where there are existing certifications is a drastic remedy to which resort should not be made except in the most compelling circumstances.
For this reason I concur in the Court’s reversal and remand to the District Court. In view of the lapse of time and the fact that the conduct which caused the disruption of service has been outlawed† by Congress, however, it appears that the issue has been mooted, and the Commission may determine that further proceedings would serve no purpose.

Although the effectiveness of the § 8 (e) ban on “hot cargo” clauses maj' have been subject to doubt when the District Court adjudicated this case, subsequent cases tend to remove any such doubt. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Local 294., International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 298 F. 2d 105 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1961).