TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court Rulings 153
rejected the Board's view. The language of section 10(k), said the
Court, "indicates a congressional purpose to have the Board do something
more than merely look at prior Board orders and certifications
or a collective bargaining contract to determine whether one or the
other union has a clearly defined statutory or contractual right to have
the employees it represents perform certam work tasks For, in the
vast majority of cases, such a narrow determmation would leave the
broader problem of work assignments in the hands of the employer,
exactly where it was before the enactment of § 10(k)—with the same
old basic jurisdictional dispute likely continuing to vex him, and the
iival unions, short of striking, would still be free to adopt other forms
of pressure upon the employer" The Court held that, in a jurisdictional
strike situation, the Board must make a determination as to
which union or group is entitled to the work on the basis of such criteria
as custom, tradition, and the like "generally used by arbitiators,
unions, employers, joint boards, and others in wrestling with [the]
problem" of jui isdictional disputes
2 Exclusive Hiring Halls—Contract Clauses—Reimbursement
Remedy
In a series of four cases, decided on the same day, the Supreme
Court rejected the Board's Mountain Pacific doctrine respecting
exclusive hiring halls, its view that certain contract clauses were
discriminatory per se; and the Brown-Olds reimbursement remedy 3
a Exclusive Hiring Halls
In the Local 357 (Los Angeles-Seattle) case,e the union and a group
of employers had, by contract, provided that casual employees would
obtain employment only by referral through a union-operated hiring
hail, the contract further provided that referral would be on the
basis of seniority and without legard to an employee's union membership
The Board found that the hiring arrangement was unlawful
because it did not contain the Mountam Pacific safeguards, and that
the discharge of an employee for having obtained a job without going
5 Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc v NLRB (Los Angeles-
Seattle Motor Express), 385 U5 687, NLRB v News Syndicate Co, 865 US 695,
International Typographical Union v NLRB (Haverhill Gazette), 365 1:7 S 705, Local
60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters NLRB (Mechanical Handling Systems), 865
S 651
In each case, the opinion for the Court was written by Justice Douglas, and Justice
Harlan wrote a concurring opinion, in which Justice Stewart joined Justice Whittaker
dissented in all four cases and was joined by Justice Clark on all but the dues reimbursement
issue Justice Frankfurter did not participate In any of the cases
e Local 857, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc v NLRB, 365 U S 667
121 NLRB 1629