*1 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF WORKERS, ELECTRICAL AFL- CIO, al., Petitioners,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. States Court of
District of Columbia Circuit. July 16, Rehearing Petition for En Banc Denied Oct. Fla., Frank, Tampa, H.
Mr. Richard petitioners. Davison, Atty., Mr. Warren M. L.N. B., R. with whom Messrs. Arnold Ord man,. Counsel, Dominick L. Man Gen. Counsel, oli, Gen. and Marcel Associate Counsel, Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. respondent. Judge, Bazelon, Tamm, *2 violating 8(b) (4) of PER conduct Section CURIAM. Relations Act. the National Labor significant question presented The in enforced. our recent decision The Board’s order will be under whether Masters, Organization of International America, Inc., al. and Pilots of Mates BAZELON, (dissenting). -, N.L.R.B., U.S.App.D.C. 351 Eleven unions struck the Florida East 771, 21, 1965, peti- of the F.2d two Railway engaged secondary Coast in “agents” of be held as tioners can liable picketing. The members of the relevant organizations" for which actions “labor local units of these unions all were em- express provisions of would violate the ployees Railway. Hence, of the these (i) (ii) (B) 8(b) (4) Na- of the Section regulation subject units were not to committed Act if Labor tional Relations organizations” “labor under the National agents.” organization by or its “a labor Labor Relations Act. Seven of the eleven Petitioners Maintenance national with unions which these locals Way Employees System affiliated, similarly, composed Division were were Railway No. Telegraph entirely The Order employees. railroad The ers, represent only employed against individuals strike the Florida East Coast by employers subject Railway by to La the was controlled a council of eleven the bor Act. unions, Such repre- individuals excluded are on which national and local “employees” apparently definition of participated. with The sentatives entirely in the National Labor Relations Act. actions of that council were petitioners follows that employees these not in are for of railroad the benefit organizations” employer. themselves “labor dispute within a railroad their with Through that statute. fortuity Masters, Under Mates of the the that four Pilots, supra, petitioners may participating neverthe are “labor or- “nationals” Board, ganizations” less be held liable if Act, the record discloses the the under petitioners regulate that acted effect, or in claims the to joint venturers with which do unions of the strike. council’s conduct qualify organizations” as “labor within finding finding No or basis for that the National Labor Act. Relations We organizations” control justified think the Board was in appears. the council Absent such con- engaged petitioners that a in were trol, any relationship they to the have joint statutory or venture with labor other members council would seem ganizations, secondary and that the activ far more attenuated than was the case though ity 8(b) (4) was within Section Masters, Pilots, in Mates & which ultimately Railway directed a Labor at relationship volved the between local a employer. Act parent union and More its international. important, however, that decision does Telegraphers That Petitioners not threaten Way interference with a con- Employees Maintenance of gressional regulatory re- Railway not allocation of (which violate the Labor Act prohibit sponsibility. secondary boycotts) does not If the unions there were by subject to National Labor Rela- their actions cannot remove them Board, they subject no tions to from the reach of the National Labor regulation Here, Congress’ activities at all. Relations Act. failure to deal activity sub- Railway of the council and its members were with such in the Labor by regulation ject comprehensive inception by to Act at its or in amendment Railway Board, Railway way no Labor under the scope detracts from the broad appears boycott secondary provisions Act. For all that Labor of the response formed in council was National Labor Relations Act. Petition procedures of requirements and subjected pro ers to themselves those Congress’ fail- regulatory they visions when undertook to involve boycotts secondary undertaking under in a ure to forbid themselves common acquiescence Railway implies its statutory Act “labor by employees. in such behavior railroad Steamship
Alcoa Maritime Co. v. Federal U.S.App.D.C. -, Comm’n, F.2d April 15, decided 1965. Before we “joint been venture” has shown, require I think we must at least (appointed by Mr. R. Loos Dickson determine un whether Washington, appellant. court), C.,D. *3 together by ions have been forced Atty., Miller, Mr. David Asst. U. S. W. Railway Act. Otherwise we risk inter Acheson, whom David U. Messrs. C. fering congressional with the Q. Atty., Nebeker, S. Asst. Frank deny I much enforcement of so would Atty., ap- U. on the S. purports of bind the Board’s order pellee. of Circuit Prettyman, Senior con- for further remand Judge, and Wright, Circuit agency of issue. sideration
PER CURIAM.
Judgment
This cause came on to be heard on the appeal record on States District Court for District of Colum- POUNCEY, Appellant, D. Charles bia, argued by and was counsel. is or- On consideration whereof America, UNITED of STATES adjudged by dered and this Court Appellee. judgment ap- of the District Court pealed from in cause is be, it hereby, affirmed. United States Court District Columbia Circuit. WRIGHT, SKELLY J. March 1965. (dissenting): July appeal This from a without is denial hearing of a 2255 motion which both § grounds entitling ap sides states
pellant Though appel to relief.1 second motion, lant’s not suc it is § legal sense, cessive Govern admits, ment on brief earlier since the grounds motion based on the same did ruling result on merits. Sanders States, 1, 15-17, v. United 373 U.S. 1068, 10 (1963). Abuse S.Ct. L.Ed.2d remedy ground is, therefore, appellant on which can the re be denied hearing lief he seeks without a 17-19, merits. Id. at S.Ct. plead In this Government remedy. judge, The trial how- abuse ever, has made no of fact show- ing remedy, an abuse of nor could such alleged plea guilty Petitioner entered without counsel and without telligent on which his conviction was based was his waiver of to counsel.