Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    McLeod v. General Elec. Co., 385 U.S. 533 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Filed: 1967-03-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 385 U.S. 533, 87 S. Ct. 637, 17 L. Ed. 2d 588, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2883 Docket: 645 Supreme Court Database id: 1966-040

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    McLeod v. General Elec. Co., 385 U.S. 533 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    29 views2 pages
    Filed: 1967-03-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 385 U.S. 533, 87 S. Ct. 637, 17 L. Ed. 2d 588, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2883 Docket: 645 Supreme Court Database id: 1966-040

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Filed: 1967-03-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 385 U.S. 533, 87 S. Ct. 637, 17 L. Ed. 2d 588, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2883 Docket: 645 Supreme Court Database id: 1966-040

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    29 views2 pages

    McLeod v. General Elec. Co., 385 U.S. 533 (1967)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Filed: 1967-03-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 385 U.S. 533, 87 S. Ct. 637, 17 L. Ed. 2d 588, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2883 Docket: 645 Supreme Court Database id: 1966-040

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    385 U.S.

    533
    87 S.Ct. 637
    17 L.Ed.2d 588

    Ivan C. McLEOD, Regional Director of the Second Region,


    NLRB
    v.
    GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. et al. INTERNATIONAL
    UNION, ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE
    WORKERS, AFL-CIO v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. et al.
    Nos. 645, 774.
    Jan. 16, 1967.

    Solicitor General Marshall, Richard A. Posner, Arnold Ordman,


    Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come, for Ivan C. McLeod.
    Irving Abramson and Ruth Weyand, for International Union of Electrical,
    Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO.
    David L. Benetar, for General Electric Co.
    PER CURIAM.

    The petitions for certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals
    for the Second Circuit is set aside with direction to that court to enter a new
    judgment consistent with this opinion.

    The Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations
    Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing upon a charge filed by the
    International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (IUE).
    The charge alleged that General Electric Company violated 8(a)(1) and (5)
    of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C.
    158(a)(1) and (5), in refusing to bargain upon the renewal of an expiring
    collective bargaining agreement because of 'the inclusion among the persons
    designated by the Union to represent it * * * of persons who also represented
    other labor organizations which engaged in collective bargaining with' the

    company. Pursuant to 10(j) of the Act the Regional Director also obtained a
    temporary injunction in the District Court for the Southern District of New
    York restraining the company from '(f)ailing or refusing to meet, confer and
    bargain collectively in good faith with * * * (IUE) by declining to meet with the
    selected representatives of * * * (IUE) because of the presence of any
    representatives of other unions whom IUE and its constituent locals have
    invited to attend for the purpose of participating in the discussion and advising
    or consulting with IUE and its constituent locals.' The Court of Appeals for the
    Second Circuit reversed. 366 F.2d 847. Mr. Justice Harlan, 87 S.Ct. 5, 17
    L.Ed.2d 45, stayed the Court of Appeals' judgment pending action on the
    petition for writ of certiorari filed in No. 645.
    3

    The District Court and the Court of Appeals differed regarding the proper
    standard which should be determinative of the right to injunctive relief under
    10(j). The District Court applied a dual test: (1) whether 'the impact upon the
    public interest is grave enough to justify swifter corrective action than the
    normal process of Board adjudication and court enforcement,' 257 F.Supp. 690,
    708, and (2) 'whether the Board has 'reasonable cause to believe' that the
    accused party has been guilty of unfair labor practices.' 257 F.Supp., at 709.
    The Court of Appeals on the other hand considered the proper standard to be
    whether the Board had 'demonstrated that an injunction is necessary to preserve
    the status quo or to prevent any irreparable harm.' 366 F.2d, at 850.

    We do not think it appropriate however to decide at this time the proper


    construction of 10(j). For on October 14, 1966, after the decision of the Court
    of Appeals, the company and IUE agreed upon a three-year collective
    bargaining agreement to replace the expired contract. We think that the District
    Court should determine in the first instance the effect of this supervening event
    upon the appropriateness of injunctive relief. The controversy over the proper
    standard for injunctive relief is immaterial if such relief is now improper
    whichever standard is applied. We therefore dissolve the stay granted by Mr.
    Justice Harlan and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeals with
    direction to enter a new judgment setting aside the order of the District Court
    and remanding to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate
    in light of the supervening event. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84
    S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288; Scranton v. Drew, 379 U.S. 40, 85 S.Ct. 207, 13
    L.Ed.2d 107.

    It is so ordered.

    You might also like