holding that Congress “referred claims under the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosures Act], not to the NLRB, but to the federal courts,” even when the conduct at issue is also an arguably unfair labor practice
How later courts described this case
- holding that Congress “referred claims under the [Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosures Act], not to the NLRB, but to the federal courts,” even when the conduct at issue is also an arguably unfair labor practice
- explaining that “conviction on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process” under the LMRDA (citations omitted)
- stating relevant question under “some, evidence” standard is “whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board”
- stating that unions need only provide “some evidence” of the charges to satisfy the LDMRA
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice White,
concurring.
The Court accurately states the holdings in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), and like cases. But since the case before us “implicates none of the principles,” ante, at 240, announced in those cases, neither is their continuing validity in their full sweep reaffirmed by today’s opinion. On this basis, I join the Court’s opinion.
I add an additional note. As the Court says, Harde-man’s conviction on both charges against him was upheld. Expulsion was warranted on either count. The principle of Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), has no application in this situation. Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398, 420 (1970); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 115 (1959); Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146-147 (1891); see also cases cited in Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576 , 613 n. 2 (1969) (White, J., dissenting).