Burlington Truck Lines, Inc v. United States General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 554 v. United States, Nos. 27

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWHITE
Citation371 U.S. 156,83 S.Ct. 239,9 L.Ed.2d 207
Decision Date03 December 1962
Docket NumberNos. 27,28
PartiesBURLINGTON TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES et al. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 554, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al

371 U.S. 156
83 S.Ct. 239
9 L.Ed.2d 207
BURLINGTON TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES et al. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 554, etc., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.

Nos. 27, 28.
Argued Oct. 15 and 16, 1962.
Decided Dec. 3, 1962.

[Syllabus from pages 156-158 intentionally omitted]

Page 158

David Axelrod, Chicago, Ill., for appellants in No. 27.

David D. Weinberg, Omaha, Neb., for appellants in No. 28.

Robert W. Ginnane, Washington, D.C., for appellees United States and Interstate Commerce Commission.

J. Max Harding, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee Nebraska Short Line Carriers, Inc.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are direct appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253 from the judgment of a three-judge District Court, 194 F.Supp. 31 (S.D.Ill.), which upheld an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 79 M.C.C. 599, granting a motor common carrier application. This Court noted probable jurisdiction because of important questions raised as to the relationship and interplay between remedies available under the Interstate Commerce Act and under the National Labor Relations Act as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.; 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., 368 U.S. 951, 82 S.Ct. 393, 7 L.Ed.2d 385.

Appellee Nebraska Short Line Carriers, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation, organized in June 1956. All of its stock is owned by 12 motor carriers serving eastern and central Nebraska and interchanging interstate traffic at

Page 159

Omaha and other gateway points with over 20 larger trunk-line carriers, among whom are the appellant carriers, with whom throughroute, joint-rate, interline arrangements have been established. Some of the stockholder carriers serve Nebraska communities without other motor carrier or rail service.

For some time prior to May 1956, the stockholder carriers had resisted efforts by the Teamsters Union too unionize their operations. Eventually, the union sought to bring economic pressure to bear upon the stockholder carriers by a secondary boycott against their traffic through the larger, unionized, trunk-line carriers upon whom the stockholder carriers were dependent for interchanging traffic to and from points beyond Nebraska. The collective bargaining contract between the trunkline carriers and the union contained protection of rights or so-called 'hot cargo' clauses which reserved to the union and its members 'the right to refuse to handle goods from or to any firm or truck' involved in any controversy with the union and provided that it should not be a cause for discharge if an employee of the carrier refused to handle 'unfair' goods.1

Page 160

In May 1956, some of the stockholder carriers began experiencing difficulties in receiving and delivering freight from and to many of their normal and logical connections at Omaha and, to some extent, at Sioux City, Lincoln, and Grand Island. The difficulty consisted primarily of the refusal on the part of many of the larger carriers to accept interline traffic tendered to them by the stockholder carriers and the refusal to turn over to them inbound traffic routed over their lines or normally turned over to them for delivery to ultimate destinations in Nebraska. The stockholder carriers, shippers, and consignees thus experienced considerable delay, inconvenience, and unforeseen expense in the movement of traffic to and from interior Nebraska points. At the same time, however, some of the larger interlining carriers, particularly appellants Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., and Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company, generally maintained normal interline relationships with the stockholder carriers.

The stockholder carriers thereupon organized Short Line and on June 22, 1956, Short Line filed an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission for common carrier authority to transport commodities on a regularly scheduled basis between certain Nebraska and Iowa points and points in other States. A further application for

Page 161

operating authority over irregular routes between Omaha and points in 32 different States was filed six months later. The applications were assigned to two different examiners, each of whom recommended that the application before him be denied. The Commission stated that 'the pertinent facts are accurately and adequately stated' in the examiners' reports and adopted the statements as its own (79 M.C.C., at 605, 608), but it concluded that the first application should be granted in part.2 The Commission found that although service in the area was satisfactory before May 1956, after that date the union-induced boycott of the stockholder carriers caused 'a substantial disruption' and 'serious inadequacies in the service available.' 79 M.C.C., at 612, 613. Accordingly, it found that grant of Short Line's application was required by 'the present and future public convenience and necessity.' Id., at 613. The Commission declared that it was not attempting to adjudicate a labor dispute or trench upon the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and it conceded its lack of jurisdiction to look beyond the duties of carriers to the public under the terms of the Interstate Commerce Act. Id., at 611. It strongly criticized the carrier appellants for yielding to union secondary boycott demands, however, and it declared that the carriers' failure to fulfill their duties as common carriers was particularly inexcusable since there had been no violence or imminent threats of danger to property or person. The Commission expressed the opinion that alleged 'apprehensions of certain of the organized carriers that any opposition to the demands of the union would have resulted in reprisals against them' were 'greatly exaggerated,' and it noted that some of the interlining

Page 162

carriers had successfully continued to deal with the stockholder carriers, with at least one of them encountering no difficulties with its employees when it changed its policy and carried out its statutory duties as a common carrier and interlined with the Short Line carriers.3 Id., at 612.

Finally, the Commission considered the remedy appropriate to the situation. Short Line had applied for operating authority under § 207 (certificates of public convenience and necessity). As the Commission noted, the Act provides other means of correcting deficiencies of service. Section 204(c) empowers the Commission to order carriers to comply with the transportation laws, and the Commission may act upon complaint or upon its own motion without complaint, in each case after notice and hearing, and sanctions are available to enforce its orders;4 § 212(a) empowers the Commission to suspend certificates for failure to comply with duties under the Act. The Commission proceeded to dispose of the remedy problem in the following manner:

'We do not agree with those of the parties who insist that the procedure here adopted; namely, the filing of the instant applications under the provisions of section 207 of the act, is in any manner inappropriate. Regardless of the injection of the labor situation into the matter, the instant applications are based upon claimed deficiencies in the motor service

Page 163

available to the shipping public of Nebraska. Where, as here, the existing carriers are shown to have so conducted their operations as to result in serious inadequacies in the service available to a large section of the public, one effective method of correcting the situation is by the granting of authority for sufficient additional service, and, in fact, we are charged with the duty of procuring such additional facilities as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the national transportation policy. The fact that other remedies are available, such as the suggested filing of complaints by the aggrieved carriers and shippers does not alter the situation or deprive any carrier of the right to follow the course here chosen.' Id., at 613.

The Commission therefore granted the application.5

The protesting carriers and the affected union sought judicial review before a three-judge District Court (28 U.S.C. §§ 1336, 1398, 2321—2325, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1336, 1398, 2321—2325), which upheld the order as within the scope of the Commission's statutory

Page 164

authority, based on adequate findings, and supported by substantial evidence. 194 F.Supp. 31. The court reviewed the evidence and concluded that although there was 'no doubt that their (the protesting carriers') ability to perform service prior to May 195(6) was adequate,' the record showed that union pressure made it inadequate thereafter. 194 F.Supp. at 45. The court recognized that a cease-and-desist order might have been utilized, but stated that additional certification was also a permissible remedy which was not made unavailable merely because the reason for inadequacy of service was that 'existing carriers (were) subordinating their public service obligations to their collective bargaining agreements.' Id., at 54.

In regard to the choice of remedy, the court rejected the contention that the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which added § 8(e) to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 73 Stat. 543, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. III) § 158(e), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(e), some four months after the entry of the order, mooted the case by making the union activities in inducing the organized carriers to boycott the Short Line stockholder carriers illegal and therefore unlikely to be resumed. The District Court expressed doubts as to whether § 8(e) 'effectively outlaws 'hot cargo' clauses,' and maintained that, even if it did, the Commission's order should still stand. Id., at 58. To the union's contention that grant of a certificate here injected the Interstate Commerce Commission into the province of the National Labor Relations...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2337 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 07, 2008
    • May 7, 2008
    ...that the agency must articulate a ``rational connection between the facts found and the choice made''); Burlington Truck Lines v. U.S., 371 U.S. 156, (1962); Western Union v FCC, 856 F.2d 315, 318 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (stating that an agency must demonstrate a ``rational connection between the ......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register September 28, 2009
    • September 28, 2009
    ...its action including a ``rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'' Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962). Statutory interpretations included in an agency's rule are subjected to the two-step analysis of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natu......
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., Nos. 84-3530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 30, 1986
    ...its action including a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 [83 S.Ct. 239, 246, 9 L.Ed.2d 207] (1962). In reviewing that explanation, we must "consider whether the decision was based on a consider......
  • Public Service Commission of State of N. Y. v. Federal Power Commission, Nos. 24716
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 27, 1975
    ...by counsel which were not reasons for the agency decision are unacceptable on judicial review. Burlington Truck Lines v. Unites States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-169, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. shell Oil Co., 363 U.S. 263, 270, 80 S.Ct. 1122, 4 L.Ed.2d 1208 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2288 cases
  • Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., Nos. 84-3530
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 30, 1986
    ...its action including a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 [83 S.Ct. 239, 246, 9 L.Ed.2d 207] (1962). In reviewing that explanation, we must "consider whether the decision was based on a consider......
  • Public Service Commission of State of N. Y. v. Federal Power Commission, Nos. 24716
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 27, 1975
    ...by counsel which were not reasons for the agency decision are unacceptable on judicial review. Burlington Truck Lines v. Unites States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-169, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. shell Oil Co., 363 U.S. 263, 270, 80 S.Ct. 1122, 4 L.Ed.2d 1208 ......
  • Loan Syndications v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16–652 (RBW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • December 22, 2016
    ...and the choice made.’ " State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (quoting 223 F.Supp.3d 49Burlington Truck Lines v. United States , 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962) ). Courts "will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be di......
  • Empresa Cubana Exportadora v. U.S. Dept. of Treas., Civil Action No. 06-1692(RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 27, 2007
    ...them so long as a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made" exists, Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168, 83 S.Ct. 239, 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962). This connection need not be clearly articulated but merely reasonably discernible. Bowman Transp.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • ADMINISTRATIVE SABOTAGE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 Nbr. 5, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (102.) 2 Kristen E. Hickman & Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise [section] 10.5, at 1145-48 (6th ed. 2019). (103.) Cit......
  • Judging the Fed.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27,32 (1981)); id. at 144 (citing Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-69 (1962)). Writing in dissent, Justice O'Connor argued that deference was appropriate because of the "specialized and technical" nature o......
  • The D.C. Circuit Takes a Wrong Turn: Redefining Solid Waste Under RCRA
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 49-6, June 2019
    • June 1, 2019
    ...States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 13 ELR 20672 (1983) (citing Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). 201. Id . 202. Id . (citing Securities & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947)). Copyright © 2019 Environmental ......
  • Judicial Review Endangered: Decisions Not to Exclude Areas From Critical Habitat Should Be Reviewable Under the APA
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 47-4, April 2017
    • April 1, 2017
    ...action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). For the reasons set forth in Parts IV through VI, critical habitat exclusion decisionmaking does not fall into a conjectured “......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT