Amazon Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union

• Citation: 167 F.2d 183
• Decision Date: 01 April 1948
• Docket Number: No. 5720.,5720.
• Parties: AMAZON COTTON MILL CO. (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Intervener) v. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

167 F.2d 183 (1948)

AMAZON COTTON MILL CO. (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Intervener) v. TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA.

No. 5720.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

April 1, 1948.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

L. P. McLendon and Thornton H. Brooks both of Greensboro, N. C., and Don A. Walser, of Lexington, N. C., for appellant Amazon Cotton Mill Co.

Mozart G. Ratner, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D.C. (David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ruth Weyand, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Margaret Farmer, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant National Labor Relations Board, intervenor.

David Jaffe, of New York City, and Robert S. Cahoon, of Greensboro, N. C. (Isadore Katz, of New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal in a suit instituted by a labor union against an employer in which it was alleged that the latter had been guilty of an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain with the union as the representative of the employees, that a strike of the employees had resulted and that they had sustained damage from loss of employment due to the strike. The relief asked was an injunction requiring the employer to bargain with the union and an award of damages. The employer moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to grant relief and that, in any event, no claim was stated upon which relief would be justified. The National Labor Relations Board, before which the union had filed a complaint charging the employer with unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain, was allowed to intervene and file a motion to dismiss on the ground that under the law it had exclusive jurisdiction of the matters in controversy. The motions to dismiss were denied and an interlocutory injunction was issued requiring the employer to bargain with the union. Both the employer and the Board have appealed to this court.

The facts may be briefly stated. The union, the Textile Workers Union of America, was certified by the Board in 1943 as the bargaining representative of the employees of the Amazon Cotton Mills Company of Thomasville, North Carolina, and negotiated a wage agreement with that company, which was renewed from time to time and extended until February 28, 1947. In the month preceding the expiration of this agreement, negotiations were conducted looking to its extension and modification; but the union contends that these were not conducted in good faith by the employer. A strike was called on March 3rd and the mill was closed down. Negotiations looking to a settlement of the strike were without result and a complaint charging the employer with unfair labor practices was filed with the Board in March 1947 and is still pending before it. In September 1947 the employer refused to conduct further negotiations with the union, contending that it no longer represented a majority of the employees. In October it began to operate its mill on a part time basis and secured an injunction from a state court restraining the local union of plaintiff and a large number of employees represented by it from interfering with operations. The union thereupon instituted this suit; and the District Judge, finding that the employer had refused to bargain in good faith, entered the orders from which appeal is taken.

We think it clear that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the case. Unless the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., has had the effect of clothing each of the more than two hundred District Judges of the country with the powers over unfair labor practices vested in the National Labor Relations Board, and in addition the effect of virtually repealing the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., limiting the use of injunctions in labor cases, the injunction granted by the lower court cannot be sustained. We do not think that the Labor Management Relations Act was intended to have or does have that effect.

Prior to the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act of March 23, 1932, 47 Stat. 70, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., the use of injunctions in labor disputes had been the subject of much bitter controversy; and the purpose and effect of that legislation was to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to interfere by injunction with labor disputes except in a very limited class of cases. The jurisdiction of the courts over labor disputes was still further limited by the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., which guaranteed the right of collective bargaining to employees engaged in industry affecting interstate commerce, defined unfair labor practices on the part of employers and set up the National Labor Relations Board to supervise collective bargaining and protect employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act from unfair labor practices on the part of their employers. It is perfectly clear, both from the history of the National Labor Relations Act^* and form the decisions rendered thereunder, that the purpose of that act was "to establish a single paramount administrative or quasi-judicial authority in connection with the development of federal American law regarding collective bargaining"; that the only rights made enforceable by the act were those determined by the National Labor Relations Board to exist under the facts of each case; and that the federal trial courts were without jurisdiction to redress by injunction or otherwise the unfair labor practices which it defined. H. Rep. No. 447, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. p. 24; S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. p. 15; Agwilines, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 87 F.2d 146, 150, 151; Blankenship v. Kurfman, 7 Cir. 96 F.2d 450; Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638; Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Schauffler, 303 U.S. 54, 58, 58 S.Ct. 466, 82 L.Ed. 646; Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 265, 266, 60 S.Ct. 561, 84 L.Ed 738; National Licorice Co. v. N. L. R. B., 309 U.S. 350, 362, 365, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed 799.

What was said by the Supreme Court in General Committee v. Missouri K. T. R. Co., 320 U.S. 323, 332, 333, 64 S.Ct. 146, 150, 88 L.Ed 76, with respect to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., is applicable also to the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management Relations Act amending it. The Court said: "On only certain phases of this controversial subject has Congress utilized administrative or judicial machinery and invoked the compulsions of the law. Congress was dealing with a subject highly charged with emotion. Its approach has not only been slow; it has been piecemeal. Congress has been highly selective in its use of legal machinery. The delicacy of these problems has made it hesitant to go too fast or too far. The inference is strong that Congress intended to go no further in its use of the processes of adjudication and litigation than the express provisions of the Act indicate."

There is nothing in either the text or the history of the Labor Management Relations Act to indicate any departure from this salutary approach to the matter of conferring jurisdiction on the courts in labor controversies. Title I makes amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, some of which define unfair labor practices on the part of labor organizations; but there is no indication of any intention to change the method by which unfair labor practices were dealt with under the act or to vest the District Courts with jurisdiction as to these matters, except to the limited extent that such jurisdiction was expressly conferred. Under section 10(j) of the act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(j), the District Courts are expressly given jurisdiction to grant injunctions upon application of the Board after the latter has issued a complaint charging an unfair labor practice; under section 10(l) they are given jurisdiction to issue injunctions upon application of an officer or regional attorney of the Board in certain cases involving jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts; under section 208, 29 U.S.C.A. § 178, they are authorized to issue injunctions notwithstanding the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in certain cases involving strikes and lockouts affecting interstate commerce and imperiling the national health and safety, but only upon petition of the Attorney General following a report of a board of inquiry and direction by the President; and under section 303, 29 U.S.C.A. § 187, they are given jurisdiction of suits for damages arising out of jurisdictional strikes and boycotts. In no other cases does the act confer jurisdiction upon the District Courts to deal with unfair labor practices; and it is hardly reasonable to suppose that Congress intended the District Courts to have general power to grant injunctive relief, at the suit of either unions or employers, with respect to any unfair labor practice that might exist, while limiting with such meticulous care the cases in which those courts might grant injunctive relief upon petition of the Labor Board or the Attorney General acting under the direction of the President. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

It is argued that, since section 10(a) of the National Labor Relations Act provided that the power of the Board to prevent persons from engaging in unfair labor practices should be exclusive, and since this provision was omitted from section 10(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, it was intended that persons aggrieved by unfair labor practices should have the option to appeal either to the Board or to the courts for protection. As pointed out above, however, a remedy in the courts not expressly given is not to be inferred; and especially is this true where Congress has worked out elaborate...