Labor Law - Collective Bargaining - Jurisdiction of District Court to Vacate an "Unlawful" Order of the NLRB

Authors

Stephen B. Flood, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Respondent, representing a labor organization, petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for certification as the exclusive bargaining agent of a group of professional employees pursuant to section 9 of the amended National Labor Relations Act. After a hearing the Board ordered that nine non-professional employees be included in the bargaining unit. Section 9(b) (1) expressly prohibits the inclusion of non-professional employees in a professional unit unless a majority of the professional members vote for inclusion in such unit. The Board refused to take a vote among the professional employees, and proceeded directly to order an election to determine if respondent's organization was the preferred bargaining agent. Respondent's organization was elected, and the Board gave its certification. Respondent then brought this suit in the district court, asking that the Board's certification be set aside because of the inclusion of the professional employees in the bargaining unit without their consent. The members of the Board moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, and this action was affirmed by the court of appeals. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed, two justices dissenting. A federal district court has jurisdiction of an original suit to vacate an order of the NLRB made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the act. Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958).

Recommended Citation

Stephen B. Flood, Labor Law - Collective Bargaining - Jurisdiction of District Court to Vacate an "Unlawful" Order of the NLRB, 57 Mich. L. Rev. 910 (1959).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol57/iss6/9