*1 PRETTYMAN, June Decided Before BAZELON Judges. DANAHER, Circuit Judge.
PRETTYMAN, Circuit Petitioner, implies, as its name is primarily representing labor union office and clerical It filed with the charges against group Labor Board unions, organizations, mostly of other litigation collectively known in alleged many the Teamsters. unfair practices to certain the Teamsters’ office and clerical em- dissenting ployees. The Board members charged observed “the violations Respondents the only [the Teamsters] gamut employer run entire practices, unfair labor but also include Bazelon, Judge, dissented. Circuit least novel The one variation.” proceed- is the first itself said: “This to be decided the Board in 20- organiza- year history in which labor charged committing tions have been practices dealing employees.” own An Examiner, hearing, after found most sustained. findings not disturb those or conclusions but found that of the Act by asserting ju- effectuated be proceeding, in the risdiction dismissed the in their entire- ties. agreed with the Examiner’s The
interpretation of Section Act,1 em- ployers to their own em- Finley, Washington, Joseph ployees. D. E. Board then it must said Mr. respond- petitioner. C., determine 1. 61 Stat. term (2), providing ‘employer’ (1947), * pertinent * * U.S.C.A. shall part: not in- “The dude er) (other * * [*] than [*] [*] acting as an organization employ-
833
employees.
(the Teamsters),
they
to to
as in
are.
ents
held
It
that
they
employers,
2(2)
en- It
all
gaged
whether
are
held that
Act
other
Section
of the
affecting placed
precisely
in commerce or activities
in
and,
so,
policies
the
the
if
same status
commerce
whether
under the Act as
all
are
by
employers.
as-
other
of
serting
the Act
be effectuated
It then
these
to
respondent
jurisdiction
employers
them.
over
the rules it
already
employers.
other
established for
Proceeding
inquiry the Board
with the
sure,
To be
this is
a
in
the
not case which
non-
first found that
these
merely
apply
Board had
to
to this union
profit organizations.
applied to
then
It
by
a rule theretofore
rela-
established
it
regularly
says
them
it
the standards it
case,
to
tive
unions. In
in-
the first
applies
non-profit organizations, cit-
to
volving
practice
application to
to
cases
illustrate the
against
union,
a
the
fashioned
universities,
It
and such.
orchestras
rule out of the material and criteria
says
jurisdiction
it asserts
by
theretofore
established
it for
in
use
ganizations “only
exceptional
in
circum-
category.
certain.
found
It
the criteria
purely
stances and in
connection
customarily applied
ap-
category
to
the
commercial
activities”.
found
plicable to a union.
In essence it treat-
“obviously,
be,
Teamsters’ activities to
employer.
ed the union as an
engagement
in a com-
substantial
meaning
argued
mercial venture” within the
by petitioner
It is
by in-
foregoing
enough
its
dispose
to serting
rules.
was
specific provision
the
in Section
Congress
of the cases.
removed from the area of
jurisdiction
Board discretion the
by
in
indicated
Cast
the frame
in
to labor
foregoing
the
fell
we think the decision
provision
We
the
given
cannot be
within
broad discretion which seems
the
put
organ-
an
broad
effect. It
applicable
to be established
category
in
izations
employers
entertaining
actions in
com
Board’s
employees,
but it
no
did
plaints.
example,
For
in National Labor
more than that.
Bldg.
Relations Board v.
&
Denver
Const.
Council,2
Supreme
Trades
The conclusions
of the Board
ref-
said:
erence
character
organizations,
reasoning
“Even when the effect of activi-
supports
which it
its criteria for
ties on interstate commerce is suf-
applicability
and the
of those
ficient to enable the Board to take
criteria to the Teamsters are rational.
jurisdiction
complaint,
of a
say they
We cannot
or ca-
properly
Board sometimes
declines
pricious. Our
these areas of
so, stating
to do
that the
goes
administrative discretion
no fur-
the Act would not be effectuated
ther.
jurisdiction
its assertion of
in that
case.”
In the
opinion
course of its
3
Other cases are to the same effect.
expressly
prior
overruled a
case4
jurisdiction
hold that
labor or-
which
had assumed
ganizations
representation
involving
are not
matter
a union
675, 684,
943,
(1941);
Drug
341 U.S.
71 S.Ct.
95
business would, least, require for ly, we of States United organizations as Circuit. Columbia jurisdictional aof the establishment Argued May singular contemplating the standard 21, 1956. Decided June institutional characteristics presenting case operations. this In determination the Gen- for suggest failed eral Counsel standard.” rest its conclusions did not
The Board part opin- of its on latter order in its the matter not discuss
ion and did of it but not treat We need
brief here. under to comment constrained organization the statutory scheme does to the Board General Counsel responsibility for have a us to seem to jurisdictional criteria formulation responsi- itself. He for the bility filing complaints. In so far for in re- has a discretion itself spect responsibility filed, must take once standards. its own will be
The order
Affirmed. Judge (dissent-
BAZELON, Circuit
ing). strikingly particular 2(2)’s I sharply dif-
reference