NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NATURAL GAS UTILITY DISTRICT OF HAWKINS COUNTY, TENNESSEE
No. 785
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 20, 1971.—Decided June 1, 1971
402 U.S. 600
Dominick L. Manoli argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Peter L. Strauss, Arnold Ordman, and Norton J. Come.
Eugene Greener, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., and Jerome C. Muys filed a brief for the American Public Gas Association as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Upon the petition of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 102, the National Labor Relations Board ordered that a representation election be held among the pipefitters employed by respondent, Natural Gas Utility District of Hawkins County, Tennessee, 167 N. L. R. B. 691 (1967). In the representation proceeding, respondent objected to the Board‘s jurisdiction on the sole ground that as a “political subdivision” of Tennessee, it was not an “employer” subject to Board jurisdiction under § 2 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 137,
The respondent was organized under Tеnnessee‘s Utility District Law of 1937,
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dealt with this question in NLRB v. Randolph Electric Membership Corp., 343 F. 2d 60 (1965), where the Board had determined that Randolph Electric was not a “political subdivision” within § 2 (2). We adopt as correct law what was said at 62-63 of the opinion in that case:
“There are, of course, instances in which the application of certain federal statutes may depend on state law. . . .
“But this is controlled by the will of Congress. In the absence of a plain indication to the contrary, however, it is to be assumed when Congress enacts a statute that it does not intend to make its application dependent on state law. Jerome v. United States, 318 U. S. 101, 104 (1943).
“The argument of the electric corporations fails to persuade us that Congress intended the result for which they contend. Furthermore, it ignores the teachings of the Supreme Court as to the cоngressional purpose in enacting the national labor laws. In National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 123 (1944), the Court dealt with the meaning of the term ‘employee’ as used in the Wagner Act, saying:
“‘Both the terms and the purposes of the statute, as well as the legislative history, show that Congress had in mind no patchwork plan for securing freedom of employees’ organization and of collective bargaining. The Wagner Act is federal legislation,
administered by a national agency, intended to solve a national problem on a national scale. . . . Nothing in the statute‘s background, history, terms or purposes indicates its scope is to be limited by . . . varying locаl conceptions, either statutory or judicial, or that it is to be administered in accordance with whatever different standards the respective states may see fit to adopt for the disposition of unrelated, local problems.’ “Thus, it is clear that state law is not controlling and that it is to the actual operations and chаracteristics of [respondents] that we must look in deciding whether there is sufficient support for the Board‘s conclusion that they are not ‘political subdivisions’ within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.”
We turn then to identification of the governing federal law. The term “political subdivision” is not defined in the Act and the Act‘s legislative histоry does not disclose that Congress explicitly considered its meaning. The legislative history does reveal, however, that Congress enacted the § 2 (2) exemption to except from Board cognizance the labor relations of federal, state, and municipal governments, since governmental employees did not usually enjоy the right to strike.3 In the light of that purpose, the Board, according to its Brief, p. 11, “has limited the exemption for political subdivisions to entities that are either (1) created directly by the state, so as to constitute departments or administrative arms of the government, or (2) administered by individuals who
The Board‘s construction of the broad statutory term is, of course, entitled to great respect. Randolph Electric, supra, at 62. This case does not however require that we decide whether “the actual operations and characteristics” of an entity must necessarily feature one or the other of the Bоard‘s limitations to qualify an entity for the exemption, for we think that it is plain on the face of the Tennessee statute that the Board erred in its reading of it in light of the Board‘s own test. The Board found that “the Employer in this case is neither created directly by the State, nor administered by State-appointed or elected officials.” 167 N. L. R. B., at 691-692 (footnotes omitted). But the Board test is not whether the entity is administered by “State-appointed or elected officials.” Rather, alternative (2) of the test is whether the entity is “administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate” (emphasis added), and the Tennessee statute makes crystal clear that respondent is administered by a Board of Commissioners appointed by an elected county judge, and subject to removal proceedings at the instance of the Governor, the county prosecutor, or private citizens. Therefore, in the light of other “actual operations and charactеristics” under that administration, the Board‘s holding that respondent “exists as an essentially private venture, with insufficient identity with or relationship to the State of Tennessee,” 167 N. L. R. B., at 691, has no “warrant in the record” and no “reasonable basis in law.” NLRB v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 131 (1944).
Respondent is one of nearly 270 utility districts established under the Utility District Law of 1937. Under that statute, Tennessee residents mаy create districts to provide a wide range of public services such as the
To carry out its functions, the District is granted not only all the powers of a private corporation,
The District‘s records are “public records” аnd as such open for inspection.
The District‘s commissioners are initially appointed, from among persons nominated in the petition, by the county judge, who is an elected public official.
In such circumstances, the Bоard itself has recognized that authority to exercise the power of eminent domain weighs in favor of finding an entity to be a political subdivision. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 33 L. R. R. M. 1528 (1954). We have noted that respondent‘s power of eminent domain may be exercised even against other governmental units. And the District is further given an extremely broad grant of “all the powers nеcessary and requisite for the accomplishment of the purpose for which such district is created, capable of being delegated by the legislature.”
Moreover, a conclusion that the District is a political subdivision finds support in the treatment of the District under other federal laws. Income from its bonds is ex-
Respondent is therefore an entity “administered by individuals [the commissioners] who are responsible to public officials [an elected county judge]” and this together with the other factors mentioned satisfies us that its relationship to the State is such that respondent is a “political subdivision” within the meaning of § 2 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ judgment denying enforcement of thе Board‘s order is
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.
I agree with the Court that federal, rather than state, law governs the determination of whether an employer is a “political subdivision” of the State within the meaning of § 2 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
In determining that the respondent Utility District was not a “political subdivision” of the State, the Board followed its settled policy of weighing all relevant factors, with particular emphasis here on the circumstances that the District is neither “created directly by the State” nor “administered by State-appointed or elected officials” and is “autonomous in the conduct of its day-to-day affairs.” On the other side, the Board gave less weight to the State‘s characterization of a utility district as an arm of the State for purposes of exemption from state taxes and conferral of the power of eminent domain.
This approach seems wholly acceptable to me, inas-
The Court points to provisions that the records of the District be available for public inspection, and that the commissioners of the District hold hearings and make written findings. These factors are said to “betoken a state, rather than a private, instrumentality.” The question, however, is not whether the District is a state instrumentality, but whethеr it is a “political subdivision” of the State. And the provisions in question hardly go to that issue.
The Board‘s reasonable construction of the Act is entitled to great weight and it is not our function to weigh the facts de novo and displace its evaluation with our own. The Board here has made a reasoned decision which does no violence to the рurposes of the Act. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with instructions to enforce the Board‘s order.