# International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · October 7, 1965 · 350 F.2d 791

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451048

## Case

- **Full name:** INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Et Al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** October 7, 1965
- **Citations:** 350 F.2d 791
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bazelon
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Burger, Per Curiam, Tamm
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9451048

## Opinion text

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
Eleven unions struck the Florida East Coast Railway and engaged in secondary picketing. The members of the relevant local units of these unions were all employees of the Railway. Hence, these units were not subject to regulation as “labor organizations” under the National Labor Relations Act. Seven of the eleven national unions with which these locals were affiliated, similarly, were composed entirely of railroad employees. The strike against the Florida East Coast was controlled by a council of the eleven unions, on which national and local representatives apparently participated. The actions of that council were entirely for the benefit of railroad employees in their dispute with a railroad employer. Through the fortuity that four of the participating “nationals” are “labor organizations” under the Act, the Board, in effect, claims the right to regulate the council’s conduct of the strike.
No finding or basis for finding that the four “labor organizations” control the council appears. Absent such control, any relationship they have to the other members of the council would seem far more attenuated than was the case in Masters, Mates & Pilots, which involved the relationship between a local union and its parent international. More important, however, that decision does not threaten interference with a congressional allocation of regulatory responsibility. If the unions there were not subject to the National Labor Relations Board, they were subject to no regulation at all. Here, the activities of the council and its members were subject to comprehensive regulation by the Railway Labor Board, under the Railway Labor Act. For all that appears in this case, the council was formed in response to the requirements and procedures of that regulatory scheme. Congress’ failure to forbid secondary boycotts under the Railway Act implies its acquiescence *793 in such behavior by railroad employees. Alcoa Steamship Co. v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, 348 F.2d 756 , decided April 15, 1965. Before we agree that a “joint venture” has been shown, I think we must at least require the Board to determine whether the unions have been forced together by the Railway Act. Otherwise we risk interfering with the congressional scheme.
I would deny enforcement of so much of the Board’s order as purports to bind agents of the four “labor organizations” and remand to the Board for further consideration of the agency issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9451048. Public record. Not legal advice.