INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF ELEC. WKRS. v. NLRB

• Decision Date: 16 July 1965
• Docket Number: No. 19084.,19084.
• Citation: 350 F.2d 791
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

350 F.2d 791 (1965)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 19084.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1965.

Decided July 16, 1965.

Petition for Rehearing Denied October 7, 1965.

Mr. Richard H. Frank, Tampa, Fla., for petitioners.

Mr. Warren M. Davison, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and BURGER and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied October 7, 1965.

PER CURIAM.

The only significant question presented is whether under our recent decision in International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of America, Inc., et al. v. N.L.R.B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 351 F.2d 771, June 21, 1965, two of the petitioners can be held liable as "agents" of "labor organizations" for actions which would violate the express provisions of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act if committed by "a labor organization or its agents."

Petitioners Maintenance of Way Employees and System Division No. 87, The Order of Railway Telegraphers, represent only individuals employed by employers subject to the Railway Labor Act. Such individuals are excluded from the definition of "employees" within the National Labor Relations Act. It follows that these petitioners are not themselves "labor organizations" within that statute. Under Masters, Mates and Pilots, supra, petitioners may nevertheless be held liable if the record discloses that petitioners acted as agents for or joint venturers with unions which do qualify as "labor organizations" within the National Labor Relations Act. We think the Board was justified in finding that the petitioners were engaged in a joint venture with statutory labor organizations, and that the secondary activity was within Section 8(b) (4) though directed ultimately at a Railway Labor Act employer.

That Petitioners Telegraphers and Maintenance of Way Employees did not violate the Railway Labor Act (which does not prohibit secondary boycotts) by their actions cannot remove them from the reach of the National Labor Relations Act. Congress' failure to deal with such activity in the Railway Labor Act at its inception or by amendment in no way detracts from the broad scope of the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Petitioners subjected themselves to those provisions when they undertook to involve themselves in a common undertaking with statutory "labor organizations" in conduct violating Section 8(b) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The Board's order will be enforced.

BAZELON, Chief Judge (dissenting).

Eleven unions struck the Florida East Coast Railway and engaged in secondary picketing. The members of the relevant local units of these unions were all employees of the Railway. Hence, these units were not subject to regulation as "labor organizations" under the National Labor Relations Act. Seven of the eleven national unions with which these locals were affiliated, similarly, were composed entirely of railroad...