De Pratter v. Farmer, 12874.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12874.,12874. |
| Citation | 232 F.2d 74,98 US App. DC 74 |
| Parties | Ruth DE PRATTER et al., Appellants, v. Guy FARMER et al., individually and as Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Board, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Cody Fowler, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Florida, Miami, Fla., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. David C. Bastian, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. John M. Lynham, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.
Mr. Norton J. Come, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Messrs. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel., and Robert G. Johnson, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
The appellants are employees of the Shoreline Enterprises of America and Shoreline Packing Company. They brought this suit in the District Court to enjoin the National Labor Relations Board from certifying the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, C. I. O., as bargaining representative for a unit of the Company's employees. The complaint alleges that the Union and the employer entered into a "Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election"; that a Board representative insisted that they also agree upon the list of employees included within the bargaining unit and therefore eligible to vote; that the employer's attorney, relying on the Union agent's representation that he was familiar with the duties of the various employees, agreed that appellants DePratter, Traina, Mobley and Diaz were not eligible and as a result they either did not attempt to vote or were turned away when they attempted to do so; that appellant Miller's vote was challenged by a Union observer and not counted; that out of 114 votes cast at the election, there were 58 votes for the Union, 55 votes against the Union and one vote challenged; that since all five appellants wished to vote against the Union, the Board's denial of their right to vote "as provided by law and the Constitution of the United States" was "illegal and arbitrary action" which resulted in the election of the Union as exclusive bargaining agent.
Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court is without jurisdiction (1) to review a representation proceeding under § 9 of the National Labor Relations Act,1 and (2) appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.
In connection with the latter ground, the following is pertinent. Before instituting this suit, appellants DePratter, Mobley, Traina and Diaz filed a motion to intervene in the representation proceedings before the Board so that they might join the employer in objecting to the Regional Director's recommendation. The Regional Director had recommended that these appellants be held ineligible to vote since they were excluded from the bargaining unit agreed to by the employer and the Union. This suit, however, was begun without awaiting the Board's decision thereon. It was not until after the District Court had dismissed this action that the Board rendered its decision. It permitted intervention but concluded that the agreement of the employer and the Union to exclude the intervenors from the bargaining unit was controlling with respect to appellants' right to vote in the election.
We need not decide whether appellants' failure to exhaust their administrative remedy before institution of this suit requires affirmance of the dismissal below, since it is clear in any event that the District Court is without jurisdiction to review the instant § 9 representation proceedings.
The judicial review provisions of the National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd Leedom v. Int'l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers
...U.S.C.A. 158(b) 3. 61 Stat. 146 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. 160(e), (f) 4. 61 Stat. 143 (1947), 29 U.S.C.A. 159(d) 5. De Pratter v. Farmer, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 76, 232 F.2d 74, 76, quoting from Inland Empire District Council, etc. v. Millis, 1945, 325 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 1316, 89 L.Ed. 1877. C......
-
Bisogno v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations
...American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U.S. 401, 407, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347; De Pratter v. Farmer, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 232 F.2d 74. This is true, also, where the representation proceeding has been consolidated (as here) with an unfair labor practice proceed......
-
Milk and Ice Cream Drivers Union, Local 98 v. McCulloch
...of due process." Leedom v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 357, 359; 278 F.2d 237, 239, quoting De Pratter v. Farmer, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 76; 232 F. 2d 74, 76, in turn quoting Inland Empire Dist. Council v. Millis, 325 U.S. 697, 700, 65 S.Ct. 1316, 89 L.Ed. 1877. And......
-
Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 16733
...in the absence of proof that the Board's action was plainly beyond the scope of its statutory authority. De Pratter v. Farmer, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 232 F.2d 74. 3 The agreement entered into between the parties waived hearing prior to the election but left the determination of all issue......