Boire v. Greyhound Corp.
1964 U.S. LEXIS 2253, 11 L. Ed. 2d 849, 84 S.Ct. 894 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) order in a certification proceeding, except in the rare instance where the NLRB acts in direct contravention of a specific and unambiguous statutory prohibition; a challenge to the Board's factual determination, such as identifying a 'joint employer,' does not meet this exception.
Facts:
- Greyhound Corporation contracted with Floors, Inc., a professional cleaning company, to provide janitorial and maintenance services at four of its Florida bus terminals.
- The Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America (the Union) petitioned the NLRB to represent the porters, janitors, and maids working at these terminals.
- Floors, Inc. was responsible for hiring, paying, disciplining, promoting, and discharging these employees.
- Greyhound, however, participated in setting work schedules, determining the necessary number of employees, and directly supervised the janitorial staff's work.
- Supervisors from Floors, Inc. only visited the terminals irregularly.
- In at least one instance, Greyhound prompted Floors, Inc. to discharge an employee whom Greyhound considered unsatisfactory.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a representation election, naming Greyhound and Floors, Inc. as joint employers.
- The NLRB, after a hearing, found that Greyhound and Floors were joint employers and ordered that a representation election be held.
- Before the election, Greyhound filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to set aside the NLRB's decision and enjoin the election.
- The District Court granted a permanent injunction, holding that the NLRB's finding was insufficient as a matter of law and that the court had jurisdiction under Leedom v. Kyne.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have jurisdiction to enjoin a representation election and review a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determination that a company is a 'joint employer' before the NLRB has issued a final order in an unfair labor practice proceeding?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review an NLRB's determination in a certification proceeding when the challenge is to the Board's factual conclusions. Congress established a specific and exclusive statutory pathway for judicial review of such decisions, which requires waiting until a final order in a subsequent unfair labor practice case. The narrow exception established in Leedom v. Kyne applies only when the NLRB acts in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the National Labor Relations Act. In Kyne, the Board ignored an explicit statutory command regarding the composition of bargaining units. In this case, the question of whether Greyhound exercised sufficient control to be a 'joint employer' is an 'essentially a factual issue,' not a violation of a clear statutory mandate. An erroneous assessment of facts by the Board is not the type of action that triggers the Kyne exception, and allowing district court review of such factual determinations would invite the very 'dilatory tactics' Congress sought to prevent.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Mr. Justice Douglas dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Leedom v. Kyne exception, reinforcing the general rule that NLRB representation and certification decisions are not subject to direct judicial review. The Court drew a critical distinction between the NLRB violating a clear, express statutory command (as in Kyne) and making a factual determination that a party claims is erroneous. By classifying the 'joint employer' question as a factual inquiry, the Court solidified the NLRB's authority as the primary fact-finder in representation cases, making it much more difficult for parties to use the federal courts to delay or block union elections. This forces employers who disagree with a certification decision to follow the slower, statutorily prescribed route: refuse to bargain and then raise their objections during the appeal of the inevitable unfair labor practice charge.
