United Electrical, R. & M. Wkrs. v. General Electric Co.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. 12628.,12628.
• Parties: UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, and John W. Nelson, individually, and as President of UE Local 506, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

231 F.2d 259 (1956)

UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, and John W. Nelson, individually, and as President of UE Local 506, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 12628.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued November 7, 1955.

Decided March 22, 1956.

Mr. David Scribner, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, New York City, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Joseph Forer, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Gerhard A. Gesell, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Burke Marshall and Abram J. Chayes, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

EDGERTON, Chief Judge.

Appellant Union, certified representative of a number of General Electric Company employees, and appellant Nelson, a member of the Union, ask declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against appellee General Electric Company. The complaint says the Company violated a collective bargaining contract by adopting and enforcing a rule or "policy" that calls for suspension and discharge of employees who invoke the Fifth Amendment, or refuse to testify, before a Congressional committee investigating Communism. Adoption of this rule is said to be a unilateral change in conditions of employment, in violation of the Company's duty to bargain with the Union. Appellant Nelson was suspended, and later discharged, under the rule.

To say the Company violated its duty to bargain with the Union is to say it committed an unfair labor practice. 61 Stat. 141, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (5). The claim is therefore within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. "Congress declared that certain labor practices should be unfair, but it prescribed a particular method by which such practices should be ascertained and prevented. By the express terms of the Act, the Board was made the exclusive agency for that purpose." Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 264, 60 S.Ct. 561, 563, 84 L.Ed. 738. The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 has not given the courts jurisdiction of unfair labor practice claims. The Board's primary jurisdiction of such claims is still exclusive. Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union, 346 U.S. 485, 74 S.Ct. 161, 98 L.Ed. 228.¹

The complaint also says the Company violated a term of the collective bargaining contract that requires notice to be given before penalties are imposed on employees. But a United States District Court has no jurisdiction, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, or otherwise, of a union's claim that employees have been injured by an employer's breach of a collective bargaining contract. Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 98 L.Ed. 510.

An employee discharged in violation of a collective bargaining contract may have a claim that is judicially enforceable. Marranzano v. Riggs National Bank, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 195, 184 F.2d 349. But the claim is not enforceable in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unless the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000. Smaller claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia. D.C.Code (1951) § 11-755. Appellant Nelson's claim does not meet the District Court's jurisdictional requirement. During the last full year of his employment by the Company, most of his time was spent on Union work for which he was not paid or entitled to be paid by the Company, and his earnings from the Company were $618.51. It does not appear that his Company employment and earnings would have been larger in the future, or that his Company discharge affected his Union employment and earnings. Cf. Friedman v. International Ass'n of Machinists, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 220 F.2d 808. Appellants say his discharge deprived him of "the benefits of the insurance protection given under the contract, a matter of $6,000 in life insurance alone", but the record refutes this statement. The contract provides that "The employee whose service with the Company has been terminated may arrange with the Metropolitan Life Insurance...