# International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 24, 1971 · 401 U.S. 233

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424457

## Case

- **Full name:** International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Afl-Cio v. Hardeman
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 24, 1971
- **Citations:** 401 U.S. 233; 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2542; 91 S. Ct. 609; 28 L. Ed. 2d 10; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 135
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by White
- **Judges:** Brennan, Burger, Black, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blacicmun, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 206 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424457

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 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

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424457. Public record. Not legal advice.