*1 NORTH AMERICA SWITCHMEN’S UNION OF et al. MEDIATION BOARD v. NATIONAL et al. Argued
No. November 1943. October 1943. Decided *2 G. Richberg, with whom Mr. Mr. Donald R. Rufus Poole was on the petitioners. for brief, Fahy Stern, Solicitor General L.
Mr. Robert with whom al.; Board et brief, on the the National was L. Savage, whom Mr. Mr. Bernard M. with and Alfred Bennett was of Railroad brief, on the for the Brotherhood Trainmen, respondents. — Douglas of the the opinion
Mr. delivered Justice Court. by petitioners, the the Switchmen’s
This an action against and some of its members of North America Union Board, the members, its Brother- the National Mediation the Central Trainmen, and New York hood of Railroad Michigan Railroad Company the Central Railroad and plaintiffs members Company. The individual are and the employees officials of the Union Switchmen’s carriers. respondent A plaintiffs were District Court.
Petitioners bargaining representatives certification collective Labor (44 Act Stat. Ninth the made the Board to the carriers.1 1185) Stat. among a carrier’s provides: dispute Ninth “If shall arise Sec. desig employees employees as are of such to who the requirements Act, in with the nated authorized accordance upon request Board, party of either duty shall be the of the Mediation investigate dispute certify dispute, parties, the such and to to both to days receipt writing, thirty invocation of its within after the the organizations services,the the name or names of individuals that have represent designated involved been authorized receipt dispute, certify Upon the same the carrier. of the services followed the invocation This certification among yardmen investigate dispute of the Board to to be sought representative. their Brotherhood oper- yardmen for all the of the rail lines system. ated the New York Central Switchmen yardmen designated parts contended certain system be permitted separate represent- should to vote for being instead of compelled part system- atives to take wide election. designated yardmen par-
The Board all carriers as ticipants the election. The election was held and Brotherhood was chosen as representative. Upon certification of sought the result to carriers, petitioners have the determination participants *3 and the representative certification of the cancelled. This suit for cancellation brought in the District Court. That upheld court the decision of the Board to the effect that all in yardmen the service of a carrier should select single representative bargaining. collective Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 135 F. 2d 785. The case here on a for a petition writ of cer- representative the carrier shall treat with the as certification so certified purposes or the of the craft class for the Act. this investigation, Mediation In such an the Board shall be authorized to employees involved, any take ballot of the a secret to utilize other appropriate ascertaining duly designated method of the names of their representatives in such and manner as shall insure the authorized representatives by employees interference, in- choice the without any fluence, or coercion exercised the carrier. In the conduct of purposes designate the election for herein indicated Board the shall may participate who election govern the and establish the rules to election, appoint the may persons a committee of three neutral who hearing designate shall days may after within ten the who participate in the election. The Board have access to have and power copies make books records of the obtain carriers to utilize may information necessary carry be deemed it to purposes out provisions paragraph." importance granted which we because tiorari raised. problems which are For we controversy. the merits of
We do not reach
not have
did
the District Court
that
opinion
are
National
the action of the
to review
power
issuing
certificate.
(8),
Code,
§'41
S. C.
of the Judicial
(8)
Sec. 24
jurisdiction”
“original
gives the
district courts
federal
regulat
arising
law
proceedings
all “suits and
if any
mayWe
assume
ing commerce.”
Dis
could be
had,
of the Board
review of the certificate
jurisdiction by
pro
reason of that
trict Court would have
Nashville
See Louisville &
vision of the Judicial Code.
Smith,
U. S.
Rice,
v.
R. Co. v.
If the of the federal courts meant absence of or obliteration of a which sacrifice created, strong had the inference would that Con- gress statutory provisions governing intended general jurisdiction of courts to control. That was those purport of the of this & decisions Court Texas New Clerks, Orleans R. Co. Brotherhood U. S.
Virginian
Federation,
Ry.
System.
Co. v.
301 purposes or class for the representative of the craft which by 2, Ninth “right” That protected Act.” is contro resolve gives power the Mediation Board to deter incident thereto concerning versies it and as an in which the is the craft class appropriate mine what Railroad Brotherhood election be held. See should F. 2d 757; Trainmen 88 Board, National v. Brotherhood Railroad National Mediation Trainmen v. district Board, F. 2d 780. A federal review necessary courts Board’s determination is not preserve “right.” Congress for reasons of protect protection its the method for the upon own decided “right” precise which it created. It machin selected it ery and tool fashioned the which deemed suited to that judicial end. imposition Whether the on top review of the Mediation Board’s administrative determination strengthen would is a protection quest considerable All questions Congress ion.2 constitutional aside, to determine rights how the which it creates States, enforced. Tutun v. United U. 576-577. S. specification such a case the of one rémedy normally Murphy, excludes another. See Arnson v. 109 U. S. Mfg. Wilder Co. Corn Refining Co., v. Products S. 165, U. 174-175; Babcock, United States 250 U. S. 328, 331; Sunshine Anthracite Adkins, Coal Co. v. 381, 404.
U. S. judicial Generalizations as to when review of adminis- may trative action or may not be obtained are of course hazardous. Where has not expressly authorized judicial review, the type of problem involved and the his- tory of the statute question become highly relevant determining whether review may be nonetheless supplied. See United Griffin, States v. 232- 237. As is indicated at length some General Commit- 2 “Even courts rulings have been thought by known to make counsel Hahlo, Crane to be erroneous.” 142, 148. *5 Co., post, R. Adjustment
tee v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas of from the railway problems emergence labor p. 323, the of legally that of mediation into field of and conciliation the 1926 recent. Until rights quite has been enforcible few. had been Act the various acts legal sanctions of been on conciliation emphasis legislation of had public were publicity sanctions mediation; increasing num- has been an opinion. Since there into the incorporated of enforcible commands legally ber machin- administrative Congress Act. And utilized has large But freely disputes. of ery more the settlement conciliation, realm areas the field still remain phases few only On mediation, and arbitration. Congress subject utilized administrative
controversial compulsions of machinery and invoked the history Nor law. not that here. recapitulate We need need we reiterate we have said Missouri-Kan- what beyond R. case our conclusion sas-Texas Co. go processes
intended to no further its use of than adjudication litigation express provisions of the Act indicate. history highly connection the Ninth is Act in 1934 as
relevant. It was introduced into the strengthen device to make more effective the processes Virginian Ry. System Fed- bargaining. collective Co. v. eration, supra, It at com- pp. only 543-549. was aimed (id., long pany plagued unions which had labor relations jurisdictional disputes pp. 545-547) but also at numerous Eastman, between unions. draftsman Commissioner Congres- at amendments, explained the bill hearings. organization sional He that whether one stated was the proper particular another group “one of the most controversial employees questions organization in connection with labor matters.” Foreign Commerce, Hearings, Committee on Interstate & House of H. 73d 2d Representatives, Cong., on R. *6 “to very Sess., p. important He that it was 40. stated make the which can decision a neutral tribunal provide problem But the get Id., p. matter 41. settled.” it was “highly controversial” that was deemed be so might thought that of the Mediation prestige rulings it would adversely by the which have affected And to make in 40. jurisdictional disputes. Id., p. these Commerce, U. S. Hearings, see on Interstate Committee Ac- Senate, Cong., 2d 134-135. pp. on S. 73d Sess., cordingly 2, give Ninth drafted as to to the Media- so of three power “appoint tion Board the committee ten hearing days neutral who after shall within persons designate the may participate who elec- That tion.” was added so that Board’s “own use- settling might fulness of arise disputes that thereafter might impaired.” Rep. Cong., not be S. No. 73d great 2d Sess., p. Congress pains 3. Where took handling protect the Mediation Board its of an explo- if problem, help Congress sive we cannot but believe judiciary had desired to implicate place federal having say on the federal final on courts the burden of any aspect problem, its would have made desire plain. is the Mediation Board certificate fact judicial ground no is course
conclusive review. States, 172, 182. U. S. v. United Ry. Northern Co. Great execu officers or to executive long delegated Congress has questions complicated the determination agencies tive pro no review was And where fact of law. to furnish often refused this Court vided might of law be involved. See questions even where one States v. McAdoo, United 633; U. S. Louisiana v. Rives, 267 Co., 371; U. Work v. Bush S. George S. & Babcock, need supra. We United States v. U. S. 175; & Guild rule. See Bates reach of that the full determine Inde- St. Louis Houston v. Payne, 194 Co. v. Packing application But its pendent Co., U. S. pattern reason of the of this appropriate here is most Act. given specified powers Board is
While the Mediation there no elections, requirement the conduct of hear- grant ings. express subpoena power. And there is no no only The Mediation Board makes “order.” And its finding Ry. ultimate of fact is the certificate. Virginian Federation, System supra, p. Co. v. 562. The function of 2,§ the Board under Ninth is more function of a ref- *7 Congress eree. To decision of the referee has added by judicial a command enforcible decree. But the “com- Id., “of mand” is that the not of the statute, Board.” p. 562. statutory mandate is that “the shall treat
with the representative 2,§ so certified.” Ninth. But analogous the 2,§ scheme of Ninth is that which existed Butte, States, A. Ry. & P. Co. v. United U. S. 127. Congress that case provided compensation the own- short-line ers of railroads for losses attributable to federal during control of the main systems first the World War. The Interstate Commerce Commission was directed Transportation the Act of 1920 to ascertain the amount of deficits or to “certify losses and Secretary the Treasury the the payable” several amounts to the car- the Secretary riers. And Treasury of the was “authorized thereupon directed to draw warrants in favor of each such carrier upon Treasury of the United States for the amount shown in such certificate payable as thereto.” Payments were made to the company Butte on such a cer- tificate and the United States instituted suit to recover on theory had money been disbursed on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. This Court, speaking through Mr. Brandéis, Justice held that since authority to interpret the statute was “essential to the performance duty imposed upon the Commission” review,” method “Congress provide did not since “remediless carrier, was as the Government, as well Id., 142- pp. law.” or of whether the error be one of fact Ry. Co., Northern United States v. Great 143. Cf. of the Mediation authority case present In the meaning of interpret disputes in election less no clear and no less used statute “craft” duty. its performance to the essential obeyed of the Board decision that the command Congress give Act did not Under this explicit. is no less action, to grant withhold take or Board discretion to It functions. gave It it no enforcement deny relief. Congress prescribed fact and then cease. find the was By. the Butte Like command case the command. intent exception. no Here as case it contained dispute terminal was to reach its last plain seems —the There finding was made. point when administrative to be no into other dragging controversy out tribunals of law. highly selective is reinforced conclusion
That review provided manner in which *8 determinations under the Act. or orders of administrative such review. But Con- provision for general no There is in for it two instances. Thus provided gress expressly Adjustment Railroad Congress gave the National “grievances disputes growing out of out jurisdiction over or agreements or interpretation application concern- of the rules, working 3,§ conditions.” First ing pay, rates of Adjustment (i). The various divisions Board have First authority 3, (k)-(o). § awards. make And suits may brought in on those awards be the federal dis- based 3, (p). findings § trict courts. First such suits “the Adjustment order of the division of the Board shall be facie of the facts prima evidence therein stated.” The in Congress other instance the Act where provided for judicial machin- prescribes § review under 9. The Act is ery voluntary for the arbitration of labor controversies. in an award of 5, § § 8. It is that Third; provided § § may impeached by a board of arbitration an action grounds in speci- instituted a federal district court on the fied in plainly § one which is that “the award does requirements not conform to the laid substantive down by this Act for were awards, proceedings such substantially conformity § with this Act.” Third (a). judicial When provided § § review of two types of orders or award&and same Act omitted a third provision as'respects type, plain drew a of distinction. in- line And the ference strong history is from the of the Act that distinction was not inadvertent. language light Act read in history of that supports the view that Congress gave administrative action 2,§ Ninth a finality which it denied administrative action under the other sections of the Act.
Shields Utah Idaho Co., Central R. 305 U. not opposed to that view. That case involved a deter mination the Interstate Commerce Commission under 1, § First of the Act that the lines of the in question carrier did not constitute an interurban electric railway. The result was that the railroad company was a “carrier” with in the meaning of the Act and subject criminal its penalties. brought a suit in equity against a United States Attorney to restrain criminal prosecutions under the Act. This Court allowed the action to be main tained even though Labor Act contained no provision rulings. review such But the de placed cision was on the traditional use equity proceed ings enjoin criminal proceedings. 305 U. p.S. Moreover, it was the action of the Interstate Commerce *9 Commission which this Court held Al reviewable. though authority of the Commission derived from related quite properly Act, Labor this Court transporta- to those but disputes labor railway not to issue long been had the Commission with which problems tion States, United And see Shannahan v. engaged. in federal tradition a different quite have latter relation- carrier-employee pertaining than those law ships. asked its af- equity a court open when
What is for the enforcement a decree by granting help firmative Ninth 2,§ Board under Mediation of a certificate Virginian Ry. Co. before us. See now questions raises Federation, supra, pp. 559-562. System
Reversed. Rutledge took and Mr. Mr. Justice Black Justice case. of this or decision part no the consideration dissenting: Mr. Justice Reed, the Switchmen’s petitioners, action
This is an referred to as (hereinafter America of North Union against the National its members Switchmen) some of members, the Brotherhood of Rail- Board, its Brotherhood) as (hereafter referred Trainmen road Company Railroad York Central the New Company, employers Railroad Michigan Central before-mentioned unions. The the members of are members and officials petitioners individual of one or the other Union Switchmen’s the carriers. in the United States District plaintiffs were Petitioners A for the District Columbia. certification Court bargaining 2, Ninth, collective Labor Act1 was made the Board the Railway followed the This certification invocation carriers. investigate among a dispute the Board to services amended 48 Stat. 1185. 1 44Stat. *10 representative. to their yardmen
the of the carriers as sought representative to be the The Brotherhood including Michigan lines, all the Cen- yardmen the rail Central tral, New York Railroad Com- operated the designation of pany participants and obtained the election for the employees upon yardmen wide The Switchmen basis. contended that designated certain parts of carrier be property the should to permitted separately representatives choose their own being compelled instead of part to take in a carrier-wide election.2
The Board of Mediation agency is the created statute designate to employees who may participate the selec tion of representatives under Act.3 the The Board under yard the distribution of Finding of the District Court shows upon affiliation, union men of York Lines based the New Central follows: approximately 6,087 yardmen employed by
"7. There are the Rail- Company. At the time Board’s road the services were invoked the plaintiff represented yardmen the Switchmen’s in all Union nine but yards on the New York Central —Lines West of Buffalo and in all yards Michigan on River, including Central west of Detroit the South Bend Transfer Crews. The defendant repre- Brotherhood yardmen yards Michigan sented on the Central east the Detroit River, yards in nine on the New York Buffalo, Central —Lines West of yardmen all and on the York New Central —Lines of Buffalo, East Big Toledo and Central, Ohio Four, and the Boston Albany; and and at time questioned no one of the Brotherhood to yardmen represent the employed on the four last mentioned lines.” 348 Stat. 1185,1188-9, §2: any dispute among arise
“Ninth. If a carrier’s employees as who are such designated and requirements in accordance with the authorized Act, of this it shall duty Board, upon request of Mediation party of either dispute, investigate dispute and to certify to parties, both writing, thirty days receipt within after the of the invocation of services, its the name or names of organizations the individuals or designated have been represent authorized the employees dispute, certify involved the same to the Upon carrier. findings made its this function and perform took to Brother issues presentation after conclusions The Board other intervenors. hood, the Switchmen concluded that the Board with no discretion
“Railway Labor Act vests two more' carriers for split single or combine *11 to determining eligible who shall be vote the purpose craft or class of employees for a of a Act, argument 2, Ninth, the and the Section power any fails furnish basis of such to law such administrative discretion.” i the found that the York Cen-
Consequently Board “New Company operated tral Railroad and all of its subsidiaries single carrier” ... employees any given craft or class,
“all of the such as service of carrier so determined yardmen, must together constituting proper therefore be taken the as determining representation conformity basis for their in with Section Labor Act. Ninth, representa- treat with the carrier shall receipt certification the of such pur- the craft or class for representative of the as the tive so certified investigation, shall In the Board poses Act. such an of this employees involved, or the ballot to take secret be authorized ascertaining names appropriate the any method utilize other representatives designated in such manner duly their authorized representatives by employees the without shall the choice of as insure influence, coercion exercised the carrier. interference, purposes herein election for the indicated conduct of may designate participate who in the election and establish the may appoint a govern election, committee of rules three hearing designate days shall within ten persons neutral who after may participate in who the election. The Board shall have copies power make access to and have of the books and records of may carriers to obtain utilize information such be deemed necessary by carry purposes provisions it to out the of this paragraph.” investigation assigned to
“The mediator with the com- proceed accordingly dispute therefore will Board’s connection with the pletion of his duties say, That he shall investigation dispute. of this is to for the regard proper representation as the basis of. entire York yardmen in the service New Central Company yardmen all service.” Railroad The election based upon this determination and certifi- cation followed due course. designation
After the of all yardmen Board’s of the car- participants election, rier lines as the election was held and the Brotherhood representative. chosen as the stated in the court’s opinion, upon As the certification of carriers, petitioners sought the result the de- have termination the Board of the participants and the cer- tification of the cancelled. But in addition injunction against the Brotherhood and the carriers was asked to restrain them from negotiating agreements *12 of concerning yardmen the craft on the carriers’ lines. This in brought suit was the District Court. It was there ground the dismissed on that the conclusion of the Board that all yardmen single the service aof carrier may be together as constituting taken proper a selecting basis for representative for a bargaining collective “is reasonable, proper and an of abuse discretion” and therefore should not be aside. set This decree by was affirmed the United Court Appeals States of for the District of Co- upon ground lumbia but the of of lack power the Board if to act otherwise lines the involved single were a carrier. the unity of carrier is accepted.4 4Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 2dF. 796: argument Congressional “The was made to tbe Committees the
precise language bring now under consideration would possible reper- railway Specific cussion in labor relations. amendments proposed were which would the have allowed division of Congress or class. craft
CO rH r“4 prob- i below and the courts the Board treated Ás statutory interpreta- of is one by this case lem presented to discretion Ninth, gives not § or whether tion, carrier into smaller single of a split to crafts Board repre- may choose units of such members units so conclusion bases its This Court employees. sentatives pass upon to any court power the lack of upon granted the authority the interpretation and leaves issue denial Board. With Ninth, finally to the 2,§ agree. cannot power, I of collective validity principle of the constitutional interpre or out of bargaining concerning “grievances pay, rates of covering application agreements tation or of interstate working employees rules, or conditions” Congress, that” as an accepted.6 carriers is It follows designate the legislation, power has the to incident to such craft of em- group or or employees representative process in the best inter- persuaded that the was not was not unification policy. employees carriers. It is for determine est of to policy. keep within the of that province Our is to confines opinion correctly had no determined it are of the that the Board We majority employed deny request yardmen discretion to of a Company appoint for their craft.” the Railroad 1185,1186-7, 2: 48 Stat. any "(1) interruption operation to commerce To avoid or to any engaged therein; (2) any upon to forbid limitation free- among employees denial, dom of association as a condition employment employees join otherwise, labor (3) complete independence organization; provide of car- for the self-organization carry riers and of the matter of out Act; purposes (4) provide orderly of this prompt for the *13 disputes pay, working concerning rules, settlement of all rates of or (5) provide conditions; prompt orderly to for the settlement of disputes growing grievances interpretation out or of out of all or agreements application covering rules, working pay, rates of or conditions.” Ry. Virginian System Federation, Co.v. 300 U. Texas & S. Clerks, R. Co. v. New Orleans Brotherhood 281 U. S.
i—* to co making bargaining. Instead of
ployees purpose for the delegated to the em such itself selection the deter representatives7 ployees the choice of the any dispute mination of these case of representatives, Board. as to their to the National Mediation identity, adequate standards delegations As these are surrounded question validity statutory no is raised to the provisions repre the selection or determination Opp sentatives. Cf. Cotton Mills v. Administrator of Wage Division, 126, 142-146. and Hour 312 U. here,
Where duties are to delegated, as administrative officers, those administrative are authorized to act officers only in accordance with the standards enacted guidance. for their Otherwise we should risk administra tive action beyond contrary legislative or to the will. Cf. Freight Corp., United States Carolina Carriers 1185,1187, 48 Stat. §2: Employees right organize bargain “Fourth. have the shall to collectively through representatives choosing. major- of their own ity any employees right craft or class of shall have to determine who shall purposes be the or class for the craft carrier, agents, this Act. No deny any way its officers or inor question employees join, organize, organiz- of its to or assist ing organization the labor choice, of their and it shall be unlawful any organization any way to interfere in with the of its employees, or use maintaining the funds of carrier in or assist- ing contributing any or organization, representative, labor labor or agency other bargaining, any of collective or performing work therefor, or employees to influence or coerce in an effort to induce them join join or remain or not or remain any members of labor organization, wages or to employees deduct from the any dues, fees, assessments, or other payable contributions to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection dues, fees, assess- ments, other Provided, nothing contributions: That in this Act shall prohibit construed to a carrier permitting from employee, in- dividually, or local employees conferring from with management during working hours time, without loss of pro- hibit furnishing a carrier from free transportation to its engaged while organization.” the business of a labor
313 not provide specifi Act does Railway The Labor 475, 489. the Media of the certification judicial review cally representatives, even Ninth, 2,§ tion Board under inter upon based an erroneous though is that certification clause Nor is there pretation of the statute. generally, a parties, to interested granting
Act an reviewed. Where Act fails actions of the Board have determining rulings preliminary for review of provide subsequent action,8 perform preparation status in chara which were not final ing administrative duties subject rulings have been considered as cter,9 such not general statutory provisions. review to review virtue of stage not at is that review is allowed reason rulings only preparation that the or orders are for future Telephone Corporation effective action. Rochester case, 143-4, 307 U. at teaches that where this otherwise final instantaneous, abstract determination of status effect, general statutory such determination comes under provisions. present review instance the certifica bring tion but 2, Ninth, preparatory step §of is bargaining about the collective which is the essential pur it have an effect pose of Act but does immediate since alleged right destroys petitioners’ participate their proper an election based on view of the electoral certification, unit. Yet there is no direct review of the general terms special, by Labor Act. necessarily opportunity
Nor there to attack the cer- in later An proceedings. Adjust- tification award of the ment Board probably challenged could parties, proceeding for its enforcement, on ground were not properly Telephone Corp. v. United 307 U. S. States, Rochester 596, 599. States, Shannahan United 226, 234; Griffin, U. S. United States v. Los United States Angeles Co., U. S. 309-310. Salt Lake R. & irrelevant to the em- would be error chosen since this hand, the award a board rights.10 the other On ployee’s *15 subject through statu- to attack § under 7 is of arbitration and Third. We by 9, First, § tory provided review Second may that the award (a) of Third provision construe the were not substan- proceedings because “the impeached be to the conformity with this Act” to refer selection tially No orders under representatives.11 of other bargaining legally binding employees, spring on from acts the Act, bargaining representatives.12 (m), (n), (o), (p). §3 577, 585,
11 44Stat. §9: impeachment contesting petition “Third. for the or Such only more by the court on one or award so filed shall be entertained following grounds: “(a) plainly substantive That the does conform the award awards, pro- requirements that the laid down this Act such or ceedings conformity Act; substantially in with this . . .” were not meaning strongly by 7, “proceeding” a indicated That has such § First, which reads as follows: controversy “Sec. 7. First. shall arise a carrier Whenever a between employees or carriers and its or their which is not settled either parties appropri- conference between of the or adjustment through mediation, provided ate board in the manner agreement preceding sections, controversy may, by such in the parties controversy, to such be a submitted to the arbitration of (or, parties controversy stipulate, board of three if the to the so six) persons: . . .” brought binding by improperly repre-
A arbitration about chosen sentatives be farcical. would 577, 586-7, 1185,1197, Stat. as amended Stat. 7:§
“Emergency dispute Board. Sec. 10. If a between a carrier and its adjusted employees foregoing provisions be not under the of this Act should, judgment Board, of the Mediation threaten sub- stantially interrupt degree interstate commerce ato such as to deprive any country transportation service, section of the of essential notify President, may thereupon, the Mediation Board shall who discretion, investigate report respecting in his create a board to dispute. composed per- Such board shall be such such number of may Provided, however, sons as to the President seem desirable: That im- opportunity an may not have petitioners reached board of arbitration of a an award or contest peach negotiations between bargaining. collective after not re- may the carriers representative certified or the board Adjustment Board quire orders compose the differences. may arbitration. peti- for the opportunity is no cases there consequence the intervene. As a Switchmen’s tioners to without opportunity are left Union and its members ruling the Act to specifically provided by contest the Act the Board the Board of Mediation that “vests single split with no discretion to carrier ... eligible
purpose determining who shall to vote for craft class of *16 2, Ninth, Act, They Section of the . . .” exhausted their remedy they appeared administrative when before the Mediation Board. 303 U. 41, S. 50.
The members of the Switchmen’s Union and the Union itself, in view of the fact that it bargaining was the repre sentative of its prior (R. members to this controversy 79), have an recognized interest law in the selection of representatives. Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brother Clerks, hood 281 548, right U. S. 571. This adheres to his condition as an employee right privacy does to a person. right This is created for these employees by the Railway Labor Act in and, appropriate proceedings, a remedy, provided by general jurisdiction of district courts, to test the extent right of this to select representa tives follows from the creation of the nega unless tived statute, jurisdiction withdrawal of or the like, appointed no member pecuniarily be or otherwise interested in any organization any carrier. compensation The members of such board shall be fixed the President. Such board shall be separately created in each instance it shall investi- gate promptly the facts dispute as to the report make a thereon to the President within thirty days from the date of its creation.” 316 0 infringed. 569-7 Id., to be right is claimed
when the 515, Federation, U. S. Virginian Ry. System Co. v. with parties may not be available remedy 543. in example, for it standing because, to enforce without con action fringement may by governmental be wrong for committed to be sued sent of the Government remedy from may come by it. The fact rather than from the jurisdiction of the courts general significant. Act We can is provisions review statutory that because no review exists no not conclude misinterpretation powers is left. remedy rights may of obliteration of presumption No such Board, 401, F. v. Labor A. U. S. entertained. L. Griffin, U. S. Shanna States v. 412; United States, han United in
The Court this case General Committee of Co., R. Adjustment post, p. 323, Missouri-Kansas-Texas to the denying power reasons for courts to deter- gives as meaning history of federal mine the statute rail- legislation and the omission of way any provision labor voting Act for review of determination of this participants Ninth. legislation is history adequately stated to which reference is made opinions preceding From their review of the successive enact
paragraph. field, plain in this that until the Act, ments adjustment railway disputes labor scheme was with *17 Act, 2, Third,13 legal 9, Second,14 § out sanctions. § 13 577, 578, 44 Stat. §2: Representatives, purposes Act, desig- be for the shall “Third. provided may respective parties in such manner as in by nated unincorporated organization association, by corporate or other their action, interference, influence, or without coercion means of collective self-organization designation party either over the exercised the other.” 14 Id., 585, 9:§ acknowledged provided and filed as herein An award shall “Second. parties on the as to the merits and facts of the con- be conclusive
r-i CO t- awards, and of arbitration enforcement for the providing forbidding boards and authorizing emergency 10,§ controversy which the out of changes in the conditions emergency of an creation after the thirty days arose enforceable; legally rights which were established board, subject judicial to of 9 made the awards § The statute and of this Court as to 10 only dictum but control Third, judicial provided §of judicial interpretation 2, provisions. with their compel compliance sanction to Clerks, R. Brotherhood & New Orleans Co. v. Texas 566-70. at over directed control particularly The 1934 Act was bargaining initial collective determina- step —the Ninth, Section employees’ representatives. tion of the examination, entirely provision.15 here under was an new just By case, cited, the Clerks decided well and law, known as a landmark of labor this Court had upheld on the judicial compulsion carrier its inter- prohibit of employee ference in the selection representatives even though statutory authority there was no for such 2, Ninth, Section action.16 1934 Act created arbitration, unless, days troversy submitted to and within ten after grounds award, impeach filing petition award, on forth, shall be filed in the clerk’s court set office hereinafter filed, judgment the court the award has been shall enter on the which judgment parties.” be final and award, which conclusive on the completely Purposes” new sections were the “General Other of § Eighth Fifth, Seventh, By 2, Fourth, Tenth. Tenth criminal and § compel compliance applied with were the commands sanctions Eighth. Fifth, These subdivisions were con Fourth, Seventh right organize freely choose cerned with representatives. their 548,569: controlling. penalty legal is not
“The absence of creation of a require end by language to that does not for its suitable effective- penalties. Many imposition statutory rights are enforced ness the penalties provided. are In the case of no which spe- penalty, question, there an absence sense statute respect prescribed punishment, with to the arbitral awards cially *18 318 in election participate in right
its terms in with accordance the Board designation of under natural there- only It was the statute. of authorization own where its assume that Congress should fore that inter- charged with was Board, the Mediation creature, a misconstruction right employees by ference with of law that error existed, which of the statute to determine subject judicial examination would meaning. the correct our attention has been called
Nothing appears to which indicating history a determination legislative from their customary power to exclude the courts nation in the laws of the cases or controversies interpret arising statutory administrative violations of stand- from judicial aid in No intention to refuse administra- ards. just Attention called apparent. the Act is tion of written the criminal sanctions into § above to Tenth. judicial is made the Act for re- provision In addition National Adjustment of the orders of the Railroad view and board of Board, (p), awards, First arbitration Furthermore, Third. the National Mediation Board 9,§ many cases, court appeared here, involving its appears far as neither parties certifications so nor questioned power.17 the courts have The Board change investigation prohibition pending conditions emergency board, legal but in report obligation of an each instance a requirements susceptible and the are is created enforce by proceedings appropriate ment to each. The same is true of the or coercion in prohibition of interference connection with the choice representatives. remedy is created and the exists. Mar Madison, 137, 162, bury v. 1 Cranch 163.” Board, Brotherhood Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation 757; Railway 2d Federation F. National Workers v. National Board, 529; 2d Railway 110 F. Order Conductors Board, National Mediation F. 2d 531. See also Association of Employees Clerks, 152; Clerical 2dF. Brotherhood of Virginian Ry. Co., 125 F. 2d Clerks v. Brotherhood Locomotive *19 Against these has been profitable.18 feels that such review voluntary- to on facts, reliance, prior later the earlier labor has little railway to the statutes action enforce significance. the and the the
Nor view of statements decision the case, statutory do we think that omission of Clerks provisions review from of 2, Ninth, important. the is Enginemen Kenan, 651; Nashville, F. 2d Firemen v. 87 St. & C. & L.
Ry. Employees’ 2d Dept., F. v. 93 Brotherhood Clerks of Ry. Nashville, Co., L. F. 2d C. & 97. v. St. Report 1938, p. Annual Board, of National Mediation 5: by
“The two cases clarifying decided the courts the discretion vested representation in the National Mediation in connection with dis putes Chattanooga the Nashville, Railway, both arose on & Louis St. by and both were Appeals decided United Circuit States Court Ry. [Nashville, Sixth Circuit. first case C. & L. St. Railway Employees Department, L., A. F. 93 F. 2d settled 340] concerning furloughed employees retaining issue an em ployment representation vote in status to elections. The second decision [Br Nashville, Ry. Co., Clerks v. C. & L. St. otherhood F. 2d establishing held National Board, when 97] eligible conducting lists and of voters elections in order to determine the employees a craft or class must do so regard due facts, otherwise, with for all of the historical and which have operated shape to the craft or class of on the carrier con generally. very help cerned as well as on railroads Both decisions are they which, to in that past, ful the Board serve to settle issues frequently adjustment orderly prompt have arisen trouble the disputes representation over among between different factions employees.”
Id., p. 1942, 7: experience
“During 8-year representation of the Board under the gratified provisions it is report of the law able in all but interpreting few instances applying provisions a its actions these the law been sustained instances, however, have courts. In all analysis the Board has benefited court review and of its actions and rulings disputes. facts of the opinions The court have clarified disputed points settled many law authority. and the Board’s they Thus constitute valuable contribution in the solution labor disputes.” car requirement that “the very of that subsection
rier shall treat so certified” was with judicial en open construed as an affirmative command Virginian authority. forcement without specific Ry Federation, System Co. . States, Ry. Co. v. United
Butte, & P. A. delegation of conclusion that authority cited authority to the duty appointee carries administrative authority since such finally the statute construe “ duty imposed upon performance to the 'essential ‘Congress provide did not and since the Commission’ *20 Government, carrier, well the review,’ the as as of method ” be of or of the error one fact law.’ whether was ‘remediless pay which the Government ordered was a case This for dur compensation deficits incurred ments carriers railways. It determined operation the was ing federal the determination Congress finally that intended to leave Commerce agent, the beneficiaries its the Interstate far Commission. This intention is easier to deduce when dealing Congress money is with its own than where it the for to exercise rights suffrage creates citizens of their economic condition. improvement Bailway presents case much closer Virginian controversy. pointed As out present analogy to duty to carrier’s “treat with” dealt with above, it 2, sought Ninth. Employees declared directing judicial order the railroad to and obtained new duties, requirements ground that on the negotiate “mandatory in form capable created rights were judicial ab process.” Despite the of enforcement statutory authority for court action was held sence legal nego sanction. Congress prohibition intended A fortiori, seek is a within tiation, here, as petitioners judicial competence.19 Adkins, Anthracite Coal Co. v. Compare Sunshine cognizance seeking judicial took suit review where Court sug- it is Congress, the intention to test factor
One 323, is p. today, post, opinion T. in the M. K. gested problem crystallize willing Congress whether statutory command commands.” “statutory into that the sought here is determination which said, it is opinion, same exercise its discretion. pur- and the explicit be Act should “the command obliga- remedy plain before afford a pose Here, implied.” should in the courts tion enforcible “employees provided unequivocally bargain collectively organize and have the of each majority chosen through representatives” of the National special competence class.” The “craft or labor relations rather in the field of Board lies construction. course statutory Of in that of than make administrative determination. judiciary does when it is ascertained courts cease “The functions of the meet the findings the Commission Adkins, Sunshine Co. test.” Coal may be Mediation Board conceded Likewise, National reasonable determination of make discretion to Gray Powell, “craft or class.” meaning words, Cf. *21 requiring judicial sanction for By plain 314 402. U. S. remedy, the court authorizes to judicially found to be com- only questions determine not Powell, supra, but Gray mitted as discretion, to v. its well. It seems more statutory powers limits of own its as assume, to genius of our institutions20 consonant with authority in the statute under without of administrative action 6, Act, Review was had attack. See Bituminous Coal 50 Stat. 85. § (1) (a). under Judicial Code and 28 U. S. C. §24 §380 20 similarly Secretary An erroneous order of the of the Interior statutory when, authority, canceled he the name of without struck enrollee an Indian Nation. from the rolls of This Court said: “But, decisions, as been this is has affirmed court former there place no system arbitrary in our constitutional for the exercise of
322 must be legal sanction apply to purpose
not that to provision any express in the absence but that plain, general intended the Congress contrary, available Code to be the Judicial authority conferred administrative aggrieved by an members its union and to a right with a irreconcilable presumably order through bargain framed as explicitly so choosing.21 employees’ own arising under rights rights as assert their petitioners to be a law which is stated Labor Act, If commerce. relating to interstate United States jurisdic- is, there is and we think allegation correct, Code, under Judicial matter of the suit subject tion of juris- original have courts shall (8): “The district 24§ proceed- all Eighth. . Of suits follows: . . diction regulating commerce.” ings arising any law com- interruption to general of the Act is to avoid purpose employees’ interference with the by prohibition merce for collective by provision freedom association regulates This bargaining disputes.22 labor settle commerce. upon Secretary authority conferred
power, exceeded the and if the the status of law, power him there is in the courts to restore then parties aggrieved by v. such unwarranted action.” Garfield Fisher, 683, Goldsby, 211 Cf. Ness 249, 694. 223 U. S. v. Fox, Co., Oil Ickes West v. Standard Compare 82; Louisiana, Work 200, 220; 250, 254. U. S. U. S. courts, When has intended to bar access whole express part, or in it has understood how to its determination. Emer gency chap. Price Control Act of 23; 56 Stat. § (b), Stat. 44 Stat. 828. 1185,1187, 22 48Stat. §2: duty “First. carriers, It shall be the officers, agents, of all their every to exert agree- reasonable effort make and maintain concerning pay, rules, ments rates of working conditions, and disputes, arising application settle all whether agree- out of the of such otherwise, ments any interruption in order to avoid to commerce or operation any growing to the dispute out between *22 the carrier and the thereof.” note See 5. carriers with whom to select sought bargain remedy Act and the must was created of action under that law. the cause here arises Since origin by” Act, “had its and is controlled Labor Peyton Agency, it under it. Railway Express arises v. Smith, 350;
U. S. Turner Lum 38, 46; S. Mulford Co., ber Co. Chicago, Ry. M. & P. St. Rice,
Louisville & Nashville R. 247 U. 201. Co. v. Since the Court federal jurisdiction, declines is use- less to discuss either the merits or the other procedural questions jurisdiction in- equity grant junction requested, the power to vacate the order of the Mediation Board or the effect of the Norris-La Guardia Act. join Mr. Justice Roberts Mr. Justice Jackson
this dissent. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OF
THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGI NEERS FOR THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD v. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAIL ROAD CO. et al. Argued
No. 23. October November 1943.Decided