In collective bargaining negotiations, two unions demanded that
the agreement require the employers to comply with union rules "not
in conflict with" federal law and that foremen must be union
members and do the hiring, but that they should be responsible only
to the employers. Union insistence upon these demands led to a
deadlock in the negotiations and a strike. The employers filed
charges with the National Labor Relations Board, which found that
(1) the demand for a contract including these requirements was a
refusal to bargain within the meaning of § 8(b)(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, (2) striking to force acceptance
of those requirements was an attempt to make the employers
discriminate in favor of union members contrary to § 8(b)(2), and
(3) striking for the "foreman clause" was restraining and coercing
the employers in the selection of their representatives for the
adjustment of grievances in violation of § 8(b)(1)(B).
Held:
1. The proposed requirement that employers comply with union
rules "not in conflict with" federal law was not unlawful
per
se. Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co., ante, p.
365 U. S. 695. P.
365 U. S.
707.
2. As to whether the strike to obtain the "foreman clause" was
permissible, the Court is equally divided; and the judgment of the
Court of Appeals enforcing the Board's order on that phase of the
controversy is affirmed. P.
365 U. S.
707.
278 F.2d 6, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Page 365 U. S. 706
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves a controversy that started in 1956 between
petitioner Local 165 and the Worcester Telegram and between
petitioner Local 38 and the Haverhill Gazette. The two unions
insisted that the collective bargaining agreements that were being
negotiated contain clauses or provisions to which each employer
objected. The controversy as it reaches here is reduced to two
clauses: first, that the hiring for the composing room be in the
hands of the foreman; that he must be a member of the union; but
that the union "shall not discipline the foreman for carrying out
written instructions of the publisher or his representatives
authorized by this Agreement"; and second, that the General Laws of
the International Typographical Union shall govern the relations
between the parties if they are "not in conflict with state or
federal law." The unions' demand that these clauses be included in
the agreement led to a deadlock in the negotiations, which, in
turn, resulted in a strike.
The employers filed charges with the Board, complaints were
issued, the cases consolidated, and hearings held. The Board
concluded that the demands for the two clauses and the strikes
supporting them were violations of the Act. It found that a demand
for a contract that included those clauses was a refusal to bargain
collectively within the meaning of § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 136,
140-141, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3).
Page 365 U. S. 707
It found that striking to force acceptance of those clauses was
an attempt to make the employers discriminate in favor of union
members contrary to the command of § 8(b)(2) of the Act. It also
found that striking for the "foreman clause" was restraining and
coercing the employers in the selection of their representatives
for the adjustment of grievances in violation of § 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act. 123 N.L.R.B. 806. The Court of Appeals enforced the
Board's order apart from features not material here. 278 F.2d 6.
The case is here on certiorari, 364 U.S. 878.
What we have said in
Labor Board v. News Syndicate Co.,
ante, p.
365 U. S. 695, is
dispositive of the clause which incorporates the General Laws of
the parent union "not in conflict with state or federal law." On
that phrase of the case, the judgment below must be reversed.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER dissent,
substantially for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, 278
F.2d 6.
We turn then to the controversy over the "foreman clause." As to
whether the strike to obtain the "foreman clause" was permissible,
the Court is equally divided. Accordingly the judgment on that
phase of the controversy is affirmed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins,
concurring.
I join the Court's opinion upon the basis set forth in my
concurring opinions in No. 339,
ante, p.
365 U. S. 703,
and in Nos. 64 and 85, Local 357,
ante, p.
365 U. S.
677.
