482 Opinion of the Court. mobile dealer. Labor Board v. Bill Daniels, Inc., 202 F. 2d 579. We granted certiorari to consider the single question presented by petitioner-whether the Act is applicable to retail automobile dealers like Howell. 345 U. S. 955. Sections 10 (a) and 2 (7) of the Labor Act empower the Board to prevent "any person" from adversely "affecting commerce" by unfair labor practices "tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce." The Board found that Howell's unfair labor practices tended to do this. Among others, the following facts underlie that finding: Howell bought its new Chevrolets from a General Motors assembly plant located in California and its spare parts and accessories were delivered to it from General Motors warehouses in California. Forty-three percent of all this merchandise was manufactured in other states and shipped into California for assembly or distribution. During 1949 Howell's purchases from General Motors exceeded $1,000,000. Howell's local retail establishment was closely supervised by General Motors. Sweeping control of the business was reserved by General Motors in a "Direct Dealer Selling Agreement." Howell had to sign this agreement to get his "non-exclusive privilege of selling new Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis" and "parts and accessories." The agreement required Howell to make varied and detailed reports about his business affairs, to devote full time to Chevrolet sales, to keep his sales facilities at a location and conduct the business in a manner that satisfied General Motors, to permit General Motors to inspect Howell's books, accounts, facilities, stocks and accessories and to keep such uniform accounting systems as General Motors might prescribe. Many other terms of the agency agreement also emphasized the interdependence of Howell's local and General Motors' national activities. 346 U.S. Opinion of the Court. All this evidence caused the Board to conclude that Howell was "an integral part" of General Motors' national system of distribution. Under these circumstances the Board was justified in finding that Howell's repeated unfair labor practices tended to lead to disputes burdening or obstructing commerce among the states. It follows that the Board had jurisdiction to act under the facts it found. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. Affirmed. Syllabus. GARNER ET AL., TRADING AS CENTRAL STORAGE & CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, No. 56. Argued October 20-21, 1953.-Decided December 14, 1953. Petitioners were engaged in Pennsylvania in an interstate trucking business. Only a small minority of its employees were members of respondent union. No labor dispute or strike was in progress, and petitioners had not objected to their employees joining the union. Respondents kept two pickets at petitioners' loading platform, to coerce petitioners into compelling or influencing their employees to join the union. The picketing was peaceful, but petitioners' business fell off 95% because employees of other carriers refused to cross the picket line. Held: Petitioners' grievance was within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board to prevent unfair labor practices under the Labor Management Relations Act, and was not subject to relief by injunction in the state courts. Pp. 486-491. (a) The National Labor Relations Board was vested with power to entertain petitioners' grievance, to issue its own complaint against respondents, and, pending final hearing, to seek from a federal district court an injunction to prevent irreparable injury to petitioners. Pp. 488-491. (b) The same considerations which prohibit federal courts from intervening in such cases, except by way of review or on application of the National Labor Relations Board, and which exclude state administrative bodies from assuming control of such matters, preclude state courts from doing so. Pp. 490-491. (c) When federal power constitutionally is exerted for the protection of public or private interests, or both, it becomes the supreme law of the land and cannot be curtailed, circumvented or extended by a state procedure merely because such procedure will apply some doctrine of private right. Pp. 492-501. (d) Congress, in enacting such legislation as the Labor Management Relations Act, can save alternative or supplemental state remedies by express terms, or by some clear implication, if it sees fit. P. 501. 373 Pa. 19, 94 A. 2d 893, affirmed. Opinion of the Court. 346 U.S. James H. Booser argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners. Sidney G. Handler argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Edward Davis and Morris P. Glushien. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by J. Albert Woll, Herbert S. Thatcher and James A. Glenn for the American Federation of Labor; by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris for the Congress of Industrial Organizations; and by Acting Solicitor General Stern, George J. Bott, David P. Findling and Dominick L. Manoli for the National Labor Relations Board. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court. A decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has deprived petitioners of an injunction which a lower equity court of the State had granted to prohibit certain picketing by respondent labor union. The court below reviewed the national Labor Management Relations Act and our applicable decisions, and concluded: "In our opinion such provisions for a comprehensive remedy precluded any State action by way of a different or additional remedy for the correction of the identical grievance." The correctness of this ruling is the sole issue here. We granted certiorari." Petitioners were engaged in the trucking business and had twenty-four employees, four of whom were members of respondent union. The trucking operations formed a link to an interstate railroad. No controversy, labor dispute or strike was in progress, and at no time had petitioners objected to their employees joining the union. 1 373 Pa. 19, 94 A. 2d 893. The equity court's opinion is reported at 62 Dauphin County Rep. 339. 2 345 U. S. 991. 485 Opinion of the Court. Respondents, however, placed rotating pickets, two at a time, at petitioners' loading platform. None were employees of petitioners. They carried signs reading "Local 776 Teamsters Union (A. F. of L.) wants Employees of Central Storage & Transfer Co. to join them to gain union wages, hours and working conditions." Picketing was orderly and peaceful, but drivers for other carriers refused to cross this picket line and, as most of petitioners' interchange of freight was with unionized concerns, their business fell off as much as 95%. The courts below found that respondents' purpose in picketing was to coerce petitioners into compelling or influencing their employees to join the union. The equity court held that respondents' conduct violated the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth held, quite correctly, we think, that petitioners' grievance fell within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board to prevent unfair labor practices. It therefore inferred that state remedies were precluded. The dissenting judge thought the federal remedy inadequate, as a practical matter, because the slow administrative processes of the National Labor Relations Board could not prevent imminent and irreparable damage to petitioners. Since our decisions have not specifically denied the power of state courts to enjoin such injury, he thought the injunction should be sustained. 3 The Pennsylvania statute does not specifically prohibit the type of union conduct charged in the complaint. However, the court reasoned that the union was attempting to force petitioners to violate § 6 (c) of the statute, which provides that "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . . (c) By discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization . . ." Pa. Laws 1937, 1172, Purdon's Pa. Stat. Ann., 1952, Tit. 43, § 211.6. 275520 O-54-36 |