A Opinion of the Court. 325 U.S. 323 U. S. 703, to review the reversal of a sing to dismiss for want of jurisdiction a embers of the National Labor Relations aside a certification of a collective bargaining ... 5. Flood, with whom Messrs. Joseph A. James A. Glenn were on the brief, for peti ... Rockwell, with whom Solicitor General Charles F. McErlean, David Findling and were on the brief, for respondents. RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the eversy grows out of a contest between rival over the right to act as collective bargaining of employees of Potlatch Forests, Inc., a Cacing logging, lumbering and milling opodern Idaho. Petitioners seek relief from ..ver of the National Labor Relations Board $9 (c) of the National Labor Relations 29 U. S. C. § 159 (c). They are affiliArcan Federation of Labor, the certified Ogress of Industrial Organizations. <toration of Labor v. Labor Board, 308 held that a certification under § 9 (c) by the special statutory procedure exreview of orders restraining unfair $ 10, Decision was expressly re4 from such proceedings, review of ed by an independent suit brought Judicial Code. 308 U. S. 412. Aww the right to such review. Prior Dy had represented the company's volvo ve bargaining. They do not seek 697 Opinion of the Court. review upon the merits of the certification. Their claim is that they were denied the "appropriate hearing" which § 9 (c) requires and that the effect was not only to deprive them of the statutory right to hearing but also to deny them due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment's guaranty. Accordingly they seek, in substance, injunctive relief requiring respondents, members of the Board, to vacate the order of certification or, in the alternative, a declaratory judgment that the order is invalid. The District Court declined to dismiss the suit, upon respondents' motion alleging, among other grounds, that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, one judge dissenting. 144 F. 2d 539. That court held that the statutory review is exclusive, with the consequence that this suit cannot be maintained. The obvious importance of the decision caused us to grant the petition for certiorari.1 323 U. S. 703. In American Federation of Labor v. Labor Board, 308 U. S. at 412, the Court said, with reference to the question whether the Wagner Act has excluded judicial review of 1 The inferior courts have divided on the question. Compare Association of Petroleum Workers v. Millis, No. 20854 (N. D. Ohio), unreported; Sun Ship Employees Association, Inc. v. Labor Board, 139 F. 2d 744 (C. C. A. 3); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, No. 21994 (N. D. Ohio), unreported; American Broach Employees Association v. Labor Board, No. 4242 (E. D. Mich.), unreported; Spokane Aluminum Trades Council v. Labor Board, No. 349 (E. D. Wash.), unreported; with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Labor Board, 41 F. Supp. 57 (E. D. Mich.); American Federation of Labor v. Madden, 33 F. Supp. 943 (D. D. C.); Klein v. Herrick, 41 F. Supp. 417 (S. D. N. Y.); R. J. Reynolds Employees Association, Inc. v. Labor Board (M. D. N. C.), unreported; Reilly v. Millis, 52 F. Supp. 172 (D. D. C.), affirmed, 144 F. 2d 259 (App. D. C.); Brotherhood & Union of Transit Employees of Baltimore v. Madden, 58 F. Supp. 366, 15 L. R. R. 519 (D. Md.), reversed, 147 F. 2d 439, 15 L. R. R. 806; Inland Empire District Council v. Graham, 53 F. Supp. 369 (W. D. Wash.). 325 U.S. Opinion of the Court. certification under § 9 (c) by an independent suit brought under § 24 of the Judicial Code: "It can be appropriately answered only upon a showing in such a suit that unlawful action of the Board has inflicted an injury on the petitioners for which the law, apart from the review provisions of the Wagner Act, affords a remedy." Petitioners earnestly urge that this case presents the required showing of unlawful action by the Board and resulting injury. Unless they are right in this view, it would be inappropriate, as was said in the American Federation of Labor case, to determine the question of reviewability. That question should not be decided in the absence of some showing that the Board has acted unlawfully. Upon the facts presented, we think no such showing has been made, whether by way of departure from statutory requirements or from those of due process of law. On March 9, 1943, local unions affiliated with the C. I. O. filed petitions with the Board for certification as bargaining representatives in three of the company's five logging and milling plants or units. The plants were geographically separate. Some were located as far from others as one hundred miles. But there was common ownership, management and control, with occasional shifting of crews or men from one plant to another. Although the petitions sought separate local units rather than a single company-wide unit, the Board consolidated them for hearing before a trial examiner. The hearing was held in May, 1943. The company, the C. I. O., and the petitioners, who may be referred to collectively as the A. F. of L.,3 appeared and participated. Some special operations, e. g., the Washington-Idaho-Montana Railroad, were conducted through wholly owned subsidiaries. * The collective designation is approximate both for convenience and by reason of the facts, noted in the text, relating to A. F. of L.'s dealings with the company through both a "master contract" and local supplemental agreements. 697 Opinion of the Court. No complaint is made concerning this hearing. It was apparently a typical representation proceeding. The principal issue was the character of the appropriate unit. The A. F. of L. urged that the unit should be companywide. The C. I. O. advocated separate plant units. The Board's decision was rendered July 13, 1943. 51 N. L. R. B. 288. It found that the A. F. of L. had organized the employees on a company-wide basis and on this basis had made a "master contract" with the company, which, however, was supplemented by local contracts relating to local matters in each of the five operations. The Board concluded that the history of the bargaining relations had demonstrated the appropriateness of a unit consisting of all the logging and mill employees of the company. It therefore dismissed the petitions of the C. I. O. on the ground that the three separate plant units sought were inappropriate. Three days later, on July 16, the C. I. O. filed a further petition, this time asking to be certified as bargaining representative on a company-wide basis, excluding clerical, supervisory, confidential, and temporary employees, as well as employees of Potlatch Townsite and Potlatch Mercantile Company. The unit thus suggested conformed generally to the one covered by the outstanding A. F. of L. contract. On September 14, pursuant to C. I. O.'s motion, the Board served notice upon the A. F. of L. to show cause why the decision of July 13 should not be vacated; the petitions in the earlier cases reinstated and treated as amended by the new petition; and why the Board should not reconsider and proceed to decision without further hearing. The order also proposed to make part of the The Board's report shows that employees of these operations had been excluded from the units in the local contracts which the A. F. of L. had with the separate operations of the company. 52 N. L. R. B. 1377, 1382-1383. record the statement of the Boards field examiner concerning the C. I. O. claims of authorization to represent employees." The A. F. of L. responded by filing & "Protest and Objection." This alleged that the proposed order contemplated a decision without the taking of evidence, to be based in part on an ex parte survey of the C. I. O. claims of authorization by employees; that employees of the two units not involved in the first proceeding would have no opportunity to present evidence in their own behalf; and that the Board had no authority to set aside the A. F. of L.'s existing contract by such proceedings. The Board considered the objections, but found them insufficient, rejected the protest and, without further hearing for the taking of evidence, considered the case upon the full record, including that made in the original hearings. It again approved a company-wide unit, following the historical lines of organization, but excluded certain “fringe” classifications in conformity with generally established policy. It further found that a question concerning representation had arisen and directed that an election be held among the employees in the appropriate unit as it had been determined. The Board's decision was rendered October 14, 1943. 52 N. L. R. B. 1377. The election was held during the following November and resulted in a majority for the C. I. O. The A. F. of L. filed "Objections and Exceptions to Election," see 55 5 The field examiner's report is introduced, not as proof of the extent of representation by the petitioning union, but to satisfy the Board that there is a substantial membership among the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate sufficient to justify the Board's investigation. These were the plants located at Potlatch and Coeur d'Alene, which were not included in the units sought by the C. I. O. in its original petitions. The majority was of the ballots cast, but not of the total number of employees eligible to vote. |