*1 ly excluded from the issues in the case traffic, LOCAL BROTH INTERNATIONAL the service needs of out-of-area TEAMSTERS, ERHOOD OF CHAUF e., i. north needs of cities west and FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND of St. Louis for service into the South- AMERICA, HELPERS OF Petitioner says Delta, Nevertheless, east area. Board based the to TWA award NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS clearly appears that needs. But it BOARD, Respondent. of out-of- use the Board made area traffic of the factors data was as one selecting meet in able to carrier best United States Court of said: needs of the area. District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Sept. factors, “Aside from seasonal n end-on integration of the extension Decided St. Louis to Southeast extending portion
"that of route No. n westof permit TWA St. Louis will flow to combine the traffic of St. from cities east and west Louis, support maximum so as to n frequenciesin the Louis-South- St.
n eastmarkets and better develop the
n traffic (Em- potential this area.” in added.)
phasis by approved Fron-
'This course was in Airlines, Aeronautics Inc. v. Civil tier
Board, supra, herein in re- discussed use of
lation to Eastern’s claim. for these
out-of-area traffic data point discussed
has no relevance by I, supra, was us in Part right applications hear- competing to a route transcontinental when a being find no reversible awarded. We
n errorin the TWA Board’s selection awardee, to make Board is if the only.
.area award remaining examined Delta’s We have
n contention, make the Board failed findings comparative on certain adequate nothing requires us points find disposition. It is the Board’s
to disturb original opin- in its clear that in qualifications Delta’s
ion discussed of TWA. Various
comparison those allegedly committed errors
other urged upon ex- We have us. are and find no re- contentions these
amined error.
versible part, part, reversed
Affirmed proceedings for further
remanded opinion. with this
inconsistent *2 ployer, Angeles-Seattle Los Ex- Motor press, and the union cease and desist performing, maintaining or other- giving
wise effect to the hir- condemned ing hall and take certain affirmative action which the Board found would effectuate the of the Act. Among the affirmative acts which order employ- of the union and jointly towas make whole one Lester may II. Slater for loss he have suf- fered from the which the discrimination Board held practiced had been agreement; hiring him under the hall employees and to reimburse all casual which, for the initiation fees and dues Washington, Dunau, D. Mr. Bernard said, had been “exacted from C., S. with whom Messrs. Herbert price them employment.” as the of their Thatcher, Washington, David D. C. and We think the order is Board’s correct Milwaukee, Wis., Previant, were on except goes directing that it too far in brief, petitioner. paid reimbursement of the dues and fees Blake, Attorney, Miss A. Rosanna Na- employees. to the union all casual Board, tional Relations whom Labor with National Labor Relations Board Fenton, Messrs. Jerome D. Dredging American Co., Cir., 1960, Counsel, National Labor Relations F.2d 286.1 The order should be modi- filed, at the Thomas time brief was fied to confine the reimbursement fea- McDermott, Coun- Associate General ture to Slater modified, alone. As so sel, Board, National and Labor Relations Board’s order will be enforced. Mallet-Prevost, Marcel Asst. General It is so ordered. Board, Counsel, National Labor Relations Betty Attorney, Southard, and Miss Jane Board, National were Labor EDGERTON, Judge (dissent- Circuit brief, respondent. ing). rightly says “The basic is- Before Wilbur K. Edgerton, Miller Judges. propriety sue this case is the Cricuit of the Danaher, finding Board’s that the Union’s exclu- hiring PER CURIAM. sive hall violated the finding Act on its face.” think this of the Teamsters union asks wrong and the order should be set aside. aside, to review set and the Na- appears Relations Board
tional Labor asks us The court to hold that an ex enforce, hiring-hall agreement an order the latter which clusive is neces hiring sarily My impression exclusive held an hall unlawful. is that hiring legal discrimination which “The always' constitutes encour- hall is and has ages membership within the so.” mean- been held N. L. R. B. v. Mountain (3) (1) of Sections and Pacific of Associated General (A) (1) 8(b) Contractors, Inc., Cir., of the National 1959, 270 F.2d “agreement Relations Act as An through Stat. Stat. U.S.C.A. 158. be done par respondent directed order em- union’s ticular offices not violate the opinion opinion aptly have considered the ap- We Third Circuit the plies more problem presented Circuit National Labor Seventh Rela on the tions Board v. Local record before us. 699, but are constrained to the view that finding upholds un The court Board’s Act ‘absent lawfully that the union evidence supplying employee Slater discriminated in hiring provisions company personnel.’ resulted from discriminatory. Swinerton, 9 the at contract and was 435.” N. R. B. L. *3 sought 511, 514, Slater had em Cir., de not obtained or certiorari 202 F.2d ployment through 814, 24, 98 the hall. 74 L.Ed. S.Ct. nied 346 U.S. “ hiring-hall ar his reason did think ‘The a this 341. factor against rangement an not discriminate him violate device or which makes the interpret “fur the Act. To the Act as practice labor unfair nishing statutory protection to to referred union members to hire provisions who choose of to violate valid employer.’ Del E. Construc Webb labor-management B., Cir., 1952, would not 196 contracts” v. N. L. R. 8 tion Co. underlying pur Corp. 841, Eichleay L. be “consistent with the v. N. F.2d 845.” * ** pose promote 799, of to B„ 1953, 803. the Act Cir., R. 3 206 F.2d agreements arrangement bargaining hiring-hall collective present The expressly * * agreement, any Joint negatives N.L. . B. v. R Furriers Council, 78, Cir., “only F.2d 80. Slater employment requiring to be good a seniority was member Union in irrespective of wheth a basis” standing. I cannot that his dis “employee mem see not is or is charge violating failing comply an to the Union.” Without ber of and the between the Union agreement, employer cannot this encourages membership. employer regard or tenure “in to hire discriminate employment condition of or term or encourage employment or discour of age union, membership” in viola in the 8(a) (3) Man of of tion agement § Act, the union 1and - attempt an to cause
cannot “cause or employer em discriminate
ployee of” section.2 in violation not contain
The WYNN, Appellant
language Walter 883, case, Mountain Pacific v. 897, not make it unlawful. this does America, but UNITED of STATES Appellee. B. Pacific R. v. Mountain N. L. Inc., Contractors, Associated 425, Cir., 431. “Within Court of United States bargaining was in which collective area of Columbia Circuit. District Congress required, was not concerned 15, Argued Jan. 1960. substantive terms with the 1960. Decided agreed.” parties Intern. Oliver, Teamsters, etc. Brotherhood 283, 295, 79 3 L.Ed. S.Ct.
358 U.S. possibility that ar- 312.
2d
rangement may at some future time discrimination does unlawful
lead Birming- it. Shuttlesworth invalidate Education, U.S. ham affirming 221, L.Ed.2d 79 S.Ct. F.Supp. D.C., 384. (1947), (2). U.S. §158(b) 61 Stat. (1958). C.A.