Local 100, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Borden

Background

A plumber and union member traveled to Dallas seeking work on a bank construction job. The local union’s business agent refused to refer him to the contractor, and the worker never got that particular job. He sued the local union in Texas state court for lost pay and emotional harm, and a jury awarded damages which state courts upheld.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the worker’s complaint was the kind of dispute the federal labor agency (the National Labor Relations Board) should decide first. Relying on prior decisions, the Court said that when conduct is “arguably” covered by federal labor protections or prohibitions, state courts must defer to the federal agency. Because the union’s refusal to refer the worker could fall within the Board’s authority, the Court held the state courts should not have decided the case. The Court distinguished an earlier case where the suit focused on restoring union membership, saying this case centered on employment relations that the Board could initially judge.

Real world impact

The ruling limits the ability of state courts to resolve many disputes about hiring halls, referrals, and job refusals by unions. It does not decide whether the union actually violated federal law; it only says the federal agency should be allowed to consider the matter first. Some workers who want quick local damages suits may find their claims must wait for administrative review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas (joined by Justice Clark) dissented, arguing the case was like the earlier membership-restoration case and that denying state remedies leaves individual members without practical relief.