Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board, No. 86-935

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtO'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. ----. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MA
Citation99 L.Ed.2d 664,485 U.S. 589,108 S.Ct. 1404
PartiesREGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al
Decision Date20 April 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-935

485 U.S. 589
108 S.Ct. 1404
99 L.Ed.2d 664
REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant

v.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al.

No. 86-935.
Argued Jan. 12, 1988.
Decided April 20, 1988.
Syllabus

The Private Express Statutes establish the postal monopoly and generally prohibit the private carriage of letters over postal routes without the payment of postage to the United States Postal Service. On the basis of those statutes, the state university (governed by appellant Regents and hereafter referred to as appellant) refused the request of a union to use its internal mail system to carry unstamped letters from the union to certain of its employees whom the union was attempting to organize. Appellee Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) upheld the union's charge that appellant's refusal violated the requirement of the California Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) that employers grant unions access to their "means of communication." Agreeing with this holding, but noting that the HEERA right of access was expressly subject to "reasonable regulations," the State Court of Appeal remanded for a determination whether appellant's refusal was reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the Private Express Statutes. PERB then found that the HEERA requirement was consistent with federal law because the carriage involved fell within the "letters-of-the-carrier" and the "private-hands" exceptions to the Private Express Statutes. The Court of Appeal affirmed, and the State Supreme Court denied review.

Held: Appellant's delivery of the union's unstamped letters would violate the Private Express Statutes. Pp. 594-603.

(a) The letters-of-the-carrier exception, which permits the private carriage of letters that "relate" to the "current business" of the carrier, does not apply. The alleged "business" in this case—the union's efforts to organize appellant's employees although a subject in which appellant certainly is interested, is not close enough to appellant's own affairs to be the natural subject of letters concerning appellant's "current business." It is a subject more accurately described as the union's own current business. The argument that HEERA makes harmonious labor relations the business of state universities, thereby rendering the union's business appellant's business, is a far too expansive reading of the exception, since that reading would permit a State to define mail delivery as the

Page 590

"current business" of some state agency and thereby defeat the postal monopoly. Rather, the legislative history confirms that the statutory language is much narrower than appellees contend, which view is consistent with this Court's only previous decision concerning the exception, United States v. Erie R. Co., 235 U.S. 513, 35 S.Ct. 193, 59 L.Ed. 335. Pp. 594-597.

(b) Nor does the private-hands exception apply, since delivery of the union's letters would violate the exception's requirement that carriage be "without compensation." Giving the quoted phrase its normal meaning, it is clear that Congress unambiguously intended that no form of compensation, whether direct or indirect, may flow from the sender to the carrier. An arm's-length business relationship such as the one between the union and the employees on the one side and appellant on the other ordinarily involves an exchange of benefits constituting "compensation" for the carrier. By delivering the union's unstamped letters, appellant would perform a service for its employees that they would otherwise pay for through their union dues, which service would become part of the employees' package of monetary and nonmonetary benefits that appellant provides in exchange for their labor. Thus, the facts that the union would not specifically pay for appellant's carriage of its letters, and that appellant would merely be performing a duty imposed by state law, do not render the carriage "without compensation." Pp. 597 601.

(c) Because this Court's analysis of the letters-of-the-carrier and private-hands exceptions and their legislative history reveals Congress' clear intent, the issue of deference to the Postal Service's regulations construing the exceptions need not be addressed. Pp. 601—602.

182 Cal.App.3d 71, 227 Cal.Rptr. 57, reversed.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. ----. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. ----. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

James N. Odle, Berkeley, Cal., for appellant.

Christopher J. Wright, Washington, D.C., for U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting appellant, by special leave of Court.

Page 591

Andrea L. Biren, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether a state university's delivery of unstamped letters from a labor union to university employees violates the Private Express Statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1693-1699, 39 U.S.C. §§ 601-606. These statutes establish the postal monopoly and generally prohibit the private carriage of letters over postal routes without the payment of postage to the United States Postal Service.

I

Appellant Regents govern a large state-owned university with over 100,000 employees. The university (hereafter referred to as appellant) operates an internal mail system to facilitate the delivery of mail to the various sites on its campuses. Appellant's employees collect mail originating on the campuses from many mail depositories and take it to a central location for sorting. The mail is separated into three groups: (1) mail already bearing United States postage; (2) unstamped internal university mail; and (3) other unstamped mail. Group (1) is delivered to the Postal Service without further handling by appellant. Group (2) is monitored to ensure that it includes only official university mail. Group (3) is examined for any letters addressed to university destinations that come within an exception to the Private Express Statutes and can therefore be delivered by the appellant without postage. Appellant affixes United States postage to

Page 592

the remainder of mail in group (3) and delivers it to the Postal Service, then charges the senders for the costs involved.

In late 1979, appellee William H. Wilson, president of appellee Local 371 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Union), attempted to use appellant's internal mail system to send unstamped letters from the Union to certain employees of appellant. The Union represented these employees and had filed a request for recognition of a bargaining unit. A subsequent unit determination, however, placed these employees in a different bargaining unit. Brief for Appellee Wilson 2, n. 2. Appellant refused to carry the letters in its internal mail system on the ground that the Private Express Statutes prohibited such carriage. Believing that this refusal violated a state law, the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), Cal.Govt.Code Ann. §§ 3560-3599 (West 1980), Wilson and the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with appellee California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), the state agency charged with interpretation and enforcement of HEERA.

Before PERB, appellant argued that the carriage of the Union letters would violate the Private Express Statutes; it relied on an advisory opinion from the United States Postal Service to that effect. Advisory Op., PES No. 82-9 (July 2, 1982), App. to Juris. Statement A66. Wilson and the Union in turn argued that refusal to carry the letters violated HEERA's requirement that employers grant unions access to their "means of communication." PERB initially declined to consider the federal law issues pressed by appellant and held that HEERA required delivery of the letters. The California Court of Appeal agreed with PERB's determination that denial of access violated HEERA, but noted that the HEERA right of access was expressly subject to "reasonable regulations." 139 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1041, 189 Cal.Rptr. 298, 300-301 (1983). The court found an unresolved factual issue, namely, whether appellant's denial of

Page 593

access was a "reasonable regulation" in light of all the surrounding circumstances, including the Private Express Statutes. It therefore remanded the case back to PERB for consideration of this issue. Id., at 1042, 189 Cal.Rptr., at 301. On remand, PERB found this HEERA requirement to be consistent with federal law because it determined that the carriage involved was within two different exceptions to the Private Express Statutes, namely the "letters-of-the-carrier" exception, 18 U.S.C. § 1694; 39 CFR § 310.3(b) (1987), and the "private-hands" exception, 18 U.S.C. § 1696(c); 39 CFR § 310.3(c) (1987).1

The California Court of Appeal affirmed. 182 Cal.App.3d 71, 227 Cal. Rptr. 57 (1986). The court concluded that the "letters-of-the-carrier" exception permitted the delivery of the Union's letters through appellant's internal mail system. In light of this conclusion, the court declined to address the "private-hands" exception. Id., at 77, 227 Cal.Rptr., at 60. The California Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for review. App. to Juris. Statement A-13. We noted probable jurisdiction, 483 U.S. 1004, 107 S.Ct. 3226, 97 L.Ed.2d 733 (1987), and now reverse.

II

Congress enacted the Private Express Statutes pursuant to its constitutional authority to establish "Post Offices and post roads," U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 7. In general these statutes establish the United States Postal Service as a monopoly by prohibiting others from carrying letters over postal routes.

Page 594

A postal monopoly has prevailed in this country since the Articles of Confederation,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • United States v. Havelock, No. 08–10472.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 6 d5 Janeiro d5 2012
    ...of penal statutes that requires us to interpret criminal laws narrowly. See Regents of Univ. of California v. Public Emp't Relations Bd., 485 U.S. 589, 604, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347–48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d......
  • Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., In re, Nos. 580
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 21 d5 Dezembro d5 1990
    ...of Congress for an expression of legislative intent. E.g., Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 485 U.S. 589, 595-97, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 1408-10, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988); North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 527, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1921, 72 L.Ed.2d ......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 d4 Agosto d4 1990
    ...of it. Furthermore, the Leake district court's reliance on Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board, 485 U.S. 589, 595-97, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 1409, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988), for the proposition that "[c]ongressional intent may be inferred from the statement of ......
  • Policastro v. Tenafly Bd. of Educ., Civ. No. 09-1794(DRD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 7 d5 Maio d5 2010
    ...carriage of letters over postal routes without the payment of postage to the [ ] Postal Service." Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. PERB, 485 U.S. 589, 591, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988). As an exception to that general prohibition, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 authorizes the private carriage of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • United States v. Havelock, No. 08–10472.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 6 d5 Janeiro d5 2012
    ...of penal statutes that requires us to interpret criminal laws narrowly. See Regents of Univ. of California v. Public Emp't Relations Bd., 485 U.S. 589, 604, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347–48, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d......
  • Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., In re, Nos. 580
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 21 d5 Dezembro d5 1990
    ...of Congress for an expression of legislative intent. E.g., Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 485 U.S. 589, 595-97, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 1408-10, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988); North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 527, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1921, 72 L.Ed.2d ......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 9 d4 Agosto d4 1990
    ...of it. Furthermore, the Leake district court's reliance on Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board, 485 U.S. 589, 595-97, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 1409, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988), for the proposition that "[c]ongressional intent may be inferred from the statement of ......
  • Policastro v. Tenafly Bd. of Educ., Civ. No. 09-1794(DRD)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 7 d5 Maio d5 2010
    ...carriage of letters over postal routes without the payment of postage to the [ ] Postal Service." Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. PERB, 485 U.S. 589, 591, 108 S.Ct. 1404, 99 L.Ed.2d 664 (1988). As an exception to that general prohibition, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 authorizes the private carriage of ......
  • 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