Anderson v. Labor Relations Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 January 1942
• Parties: ANDERSON et al. v. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

310 Mass. 590

38 N.E.2d 929

ANDERSON et al.

v.LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 16, 1942.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Morton, Judge.

Proceedings by Gus J. Anderson and another for a writ of mandamus directing the Labor Relations Commission to render a decision as to who if any one was the duly authorized bargaining agent for certain employees of the Costello Distributing Company, Inc. There was a judgment for petitioners, and respondent brings exceptions.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss petition.

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.

J. I. Yoffa, of Boston, for petitioners.

L. E. Crowley, of Brockton, and Gordon D. Boynton, of Boston, for respondents.

DOLAN, Justice.

On October 22, 1940, the petitioners, who were the officers of Local No. 14 of the International Union, United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America (hereinafter called the Brewery Workers Union), filed a petition with the respondent commission under the provisions of § 5(a)(b)(c) of G.L., c. 150A, inserted by St.1938, c. 345, § 2, seeking to be certified as representative for the purpose of collective bargaining of certain employees in a unit consisting of eleven truck drivers employed by Costello Distributing Company, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the business of selling and distributing beer and ale.

After due notice to all parties in interest, a hearing was held before the commission on January 16, 1941, and Local No. 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, which like the Brewery Workers Union is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, appeared at the hearing in opposition to the petition. The parties were in accord that the employees involved constituted a proper unit for collective bargaining. Ten of the eleven employees involved testified at the hearing that they were members of Local No. 14 and desired to be represented by it for the purposes of collective bargaining. ‘There was uncontradicted evidence that the Costello Company had refused to recognize Local No. 14 as the bargaining agent of the employees.’ On February 12, 1941, the commission rendered its decision and an opinion in which it stated, in substance, that the contending unions are both affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, that the dispute was one which the federation had power to decide, that ‘a majority of the commission believes that the commission should leave labor organizations free to work out their own solutions through the procedure they themselves have established for that purpose.’ This statementwas qualified however by another to the effect that the facilities of the commission would ‘always be available to affiliated unions which are involved in jurisdictional disputes when the disputants are in accord as to the appropriate unit and agree to decide the controversy by means of an election under the direction of the commission.’ The decision was that of a majority of the commission, who ordered that the petition be dismissed. One member of the commission filed a dissenting opinion.

Thereafter the petitioners brought the present...