NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The National Labor Relations Board directed a run-off election between two unions seeking to represent employees of Consumers Power Company, excluding one union from the ballot, and the Court of Appeals reviewed and set aside this direction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that directions for elections issued by the NLRB in representation proceedings under the Wagner Act are not subject to judicial review under the statute's review provisions, as they are intermediate steps in the representation process rather than final certifications.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 401. The decisive-question raised by the petition is whether a direction for an election made by the National Labor Relations Board in a representation proceeding under § 9 (c) of the Wagner Act, 49 Stat. 449, 453, 29 U. S. C., Supp. IV, §§ 151-166, is reviewable by a circuit court of appeals under § 10 (f) of the Act. In February, 1938, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 876, one of the respondents, and an affiliate of respondent, American Federation of Labor, filed with the regional director of the Board a petition asking an investigation and the certification of a representative, for purposes of collective bargaining, of the employees of Consumers Power Company, pursuant to § 9 (c) of the Act. After a hearing,' in which the petitioner, the employer, and the Utility Workers Organizing Committee, an affiliate of the Congress of Industrial Organization, participatéd, the Board issued a “decision and direction of election.” 9 N. L. R. B. 742. At the election in January, 1939, 2,806 of the total 2,977 employees voted. Of these 1,072 voted for I. B. E. W. and 1,164 voted for U. W. O. C.
After further proceedings and a hearing the Board found “that the question concerning'representation which has arisen can best be resolved by the holding of a run-off election in which the employees in the appropriate unit will be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they desire to be represented by U. W. O. C.” and made its “direction” accordingly. 11 N. L. R. B. 848.
Contending that the direction, contrary to law, excludes Union 876 from the ballot on the run-off election, respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to review the direction under the provisions of § 10 (f) of the Act. ' That court set aside the direction as infringing the free choice by employees of their representatives for purposes of collective bargaining assured to them by §§ 1, 7, 9 (a) and(c) of the Wagner Act. ,We granted certiorari October 9, 1939, so that the case might be considered with American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, supra.
Decision here is controlled by our decision in that case. The direction for an election is but a part of the representation proceeding authorized by § 9 (c) and is no more subject to review under § 10 (f) than is a certification which is the final step in such a proceeding and which we have just held Congress has excluded from the review afforded by that subdivisión.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
Inland Empire Dist. Council v. Millis, 325 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1945)…s., 5-6; H. R. Rep. No. 1147, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 6-7. A direction of election is but an intermediate step in the investigation, with certification as the final and effective action. Labor Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 308 U. S. 413, 414-415. Nothing in § 9 (c) requires the Board to utilize the results of an election or forbids it to disregard them and utilize other suitable methods. It hardly can be taken, in view of all these considerations, that Congress intended a hearing…
-
Hendrix Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963)…consolidated proceeding and rests in great part on identical actions of the Employer. But ever since American Federation of Labor v. NLRB, 1940, 308 U.S. 401, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347; NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1940, 308 U.S. 413, 60 S.Ct. 306, 84 L.Ed. 354, it has been clear that Courts of Appeals do not have the power to review representation proceedings. And jurisdiction does not come into being because the répresentation order arises out of a consolidated hearing as to w…
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whittier Mills Co., 111 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1940)…ow the Committee to be the true representative of the employees. The decisions in American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Board, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. -, and National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 60 S.Ct. 306, 84 L.Ed. -, denied jurisdiction in the Circuit Courts of Appeal to review such certificates before an order under Section 10, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160, is made against an employer. But Section 9(d) requires that the record touching the certification shall…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence