Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, No. 252

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit , and LEIBELL
Citation241 F.2d 278
Docket NumberNo. 252,Docket 24446.
Decision Date04 February 1957
PartiesCharles T. DOUDS, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, and William V. Bradley, Its President, and Patrick J. Connolly, Its Executive Vice President and Chairman of its Wage Scale Committee, Atlantic Coast District, Respondents-Appellants.

241 F.2d 278 (1957)

Charles T. DOUDS, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, and William V. Bradley, Its President, and Patrick J. Connolly, Its Executive Vice President and Chairman of its Wage Scale Committee, Atlantic Coast District, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 252, Docket 24446.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued January 17, 1957.

Decided February 4, 1957.


241 F.2d 279

Waldman & Waldman, New York City (Louis Waldman, Seymour M. Waldman and Martin Markson, New York City, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

241 F.2d 280

Kenneth C. McGuiness, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, Winthrop A. Johns, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Joseph I. Nachman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner-appellee.

Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and LEIBELL, District Judge.

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

On August 1, 1956, the International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, and the New York Shipping Association began to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement to replace a two-year agreement which was due to expire on September 30 of that year. The old agreement covered only employees in the Port of Greater New York and vicinity; and the ILA, as the Longshoremen's Association is commonly called, demanded that this bargaining unit be extended to include almost all ports from Portland, Maine, to Brownsville, Texas.

One day before this bargaining began, the International Brotherhood of Longshoremen (AFL) filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board for a new election to determine whether it or the ILA should be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the Greater New York unit. The ILA also petitioned the Board to change the bargaining unit so that it would not be limited to Greater New York, but would include almost all the Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports of the United States.

The Board disposed of these matters in an opinion dated September 24, 1956. 116 N.L.R.B. No. 157. It confined "the scope of the appropriate unit * * * to the Port of Greater New York and Vicinity," as it had done in 1953, and ordered an election by secret ballot to determine whether the ILA or its rival union should be certified as the representative of employees in that unit. The election was held on October 17, 1956 and resulted in a vote in favor of the ILA. On October 25, 1956, the Board again certified the ILA as the representative for collective bargaining of the employees in the Greater New York area, which it had found one month earlier to be the appropriate bargaining unit.

During these proceedings, the ILA and the Shipping Association continued to meet in order to arrange a new agreement and the ILA continued to demand an enlargement of the bargaining unit. The Association objected to any change in the unit of bargaining and on October 23, 1956 filed the following charge against the ILA with the National Labor Relations Board:

On various dates, including October 22, 1956, September 4, 1956, and August 1, 2, 9 & 27, 1956, Respondents, labor organizations and agents thereof, being representatives of the Employer\'s employees subject to section 9(a) of the Act, have refused and continue to refuse to bargain collectively with the Employer in good faith by insisting that the latter, which is authorized to bargain only for employers employing employees in the Port of Greater New York and vicinity, bargain with them for all employees engaged in longshore work in all ports from Portland, Maine to Brownsville, Texas when the appropriate unit for bargaining as found by the Board in Case No. 2-RC-8388, 116 NLRB No. 157, (Sept. 24, 1956) is the Port of Greater N. Y. and vicinity and by refusing to discuss or negotiate with the employer terms and conditions of employment to be applied to longshore employees in the Port of Greater New York and Vicinity.

Though this charge was filed, the parties met frequently and for long sessions until the negotiations reached an impasse on November 15 and a strike was called by the ILA in all Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports. On November 21, having investigated the charge filed by the Association one month earlier and having issued a complaint, the Board petitioned the District Court for a temporary

241 F.2d 281
injunction pursuant to Section 10 (j) of the National Labor Relations Act. It is from the order granted by the District Court, enjoining the ILA from insisting on a change in the bargaining unit found appropriate by the Board, that this appeal is taken

The questions raised on this appeal deal with each of the three steps required by Sections 10(b) and 10(j)1 before a District Court may issue a temporary injunction. The first step is the filing of a "charge" by a party alleging that some person has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor practice. The second step is the issuance of a "complaint" by the National Labor Relations Board, "stating the charges in that respect." The third step is a hearing by the District Court to determine: (1) if there is reasonable cause to believe that the certain labor practice stated in the complaint was committed; and (2) if, under these circumstances, a temporary injunction would be "just and proper."

The appellants argue (1) that the "charge" failed to allege an unfair labor practice; (2) that the "complaint" in any event failed to state the charge "in that respect"; and (3) that the court had no power to issue an injunction here. These arguments, we note, were considered and rejected by Judge Bryan in his scholarly and comprehensive opinion, 147 F.Supp. 103.

I

The "charge" alleged that the ILA was the "representatives of the Employer's employees subject to Section 9 (a) of the Act" and, by implication, that the ILA was thus under a duty to bargain in good faith. It also alleged that on various days between August 1 and October 22, 1956, the ILA insisted that the Association "bargain with them for all employees engaged in longshore work in all ports from Portland, Maine to Brownsville, Texas" after the National Labor Relations Board had decided that the appropriate unit for bargaining was the Port of Greater New York and vicinity. We hold that these allegations "charged" an unfair labor practice, within the meaning of Section 8(b) (3).

This conclusion is required by the logic of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 1 declares that the policy of the Act is to prevent obstructions on the free flow of commerce "by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining." To effectuate this policy, Section 7 protects the employees' right "to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing" and Section 8(a) (1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with that right. Moreover, Section 8(a) (5) declares that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 9(a)"; and Section 8(b) (3) similarly declares that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization "to refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of his employees subject to the provisions of section 9(a)."

Section 9 fixes the framework within which labor and management are required to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 practice notes
  • Smith Steel Workers v. AO Smith Corporation, No. 17309
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • December 23, 1969
    ...in a different unit by the Board violates the union's obligation to bargain collectively. Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n., 241 F. 2d 278, 281-283 (2d Cir. 1957); District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Central Soya Co.), 142 NLRB 930, 939 (1963); International Longshoremen......
  • Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 79-1640
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 7, 1981
    ...so he may prepare his case, and sets the standard of relevance at the hearing before the ALJ. Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 241 F.2d 278, 283 (2d Cir. Due process prohibits the enforcement of a finding by the Board of a violation "neither charged in the complaint nor litigate......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Company 8212 93, NASH-FINCH
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1971
    ...grounds, 309 U.S. 350, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940); Douds v. Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., 147 F.Supp. 103, 108 (SDNY 1956), aff'd, 241 F.2d 278 (CA2 1957). See also National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, 369, 60 S.Ct. 569, 579, 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940). The B......
  • Southfield Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Southfield, Docket No. 81974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 22, 1989
    ...445 (CA 5, 1969], cert. den. 397 U.S. 916, 90 S.Ct. 920, 25 L.Ed.2d 97 [1970]; accord, Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278, 282-283 (CA 2, 1957]. The reason is that Sec. 8(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
66 cases
  • Smith Steel Workers v. AO Smith Corporation, No. 17309
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • December 23, 1969
    ...in a different unit by the Board violates the union's obligation to bargain collectively. Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n., 241 F. 2d 278, 281-283 (2d Cir. 1957); District 50, United Mine Workers of America (Central Soya Co.), 142 NLRB 930, 939 (1963); International Longshoremen......
  • Soule Glass and Glazing Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 79-1640
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • May 7, 1981
    ...so he may prepare his case, and sets the standard of relevance at the hearing before the ALJ. Douds v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n, 241 F.2d 278, 283 (2d Cir. Due process prohibits the enforcement of a finding by the Board of a violation "neither charged in the complaint nor litigate......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Company 8212 93, NASH-FINCH
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1971
    ...grounds, 309 U.S. 350, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940); Douds v. Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., 147 F.Supp. 103, 108 (SDNY 1956), aff'd, 241 F.2d 278 (CA2 1957). See also National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, 369, 60 S.Ct. 569, 579, 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940). The B......
  • Southfield Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Southfield, Docket No. 81974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 22, 1989
    ...445 (CA 5, 1969], cert. den. 397 U.S. 916, 90 S.Ct. 920, 25 L.Ed.2d 97 [1970]; accord, Douds v. International Longshoremen's Association, 241 F.2d 278, 282-283 (CA 2, 1957]. The reason is that Sec. 8(a)(5) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively w......
  • 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