Leedom et al., Members of the National Labor Relations Board, v. Kyne
358 U.S. 184 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court has jurisdiction to hear an original suit to strike down an order of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific, mandatory prohibition in the National Labor Relations Act.
Facts:
- Buffalo Section, Westinghouse Engineers Association (the Association) was a labor organization formed to represent nonsupervisory professional employees at a Westinghouse Electric Corporation plant.
- In October 1955, the Association petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit composed of 233 professional employees.
- During the NLRB hearing, a competing union intervened and requested that the unit be expanded to include employees in other technical, nonprofessional categories.
- The NLRB found that nine employees from these other categories were not professional employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
- Despite this finding, the NLRB included the nine nonprofessional employees in the bargaining unit with the 233 professional employees.
- The National Labor Relations Act § 9(b)(1) explicitly prohibits the Board from including both professional and nonprofessional employees in the same unit unless a majority of the professional employees vote for such inclusion.
- The NLRB refused the Association's request to conduct a vote among the professional employees to determine if they consented to the inclusion of the nonprofessional employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Kyne, as president of the Association, filed suit against the members of the NLRB (Leedom, et al.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendants moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
- The District Court denied the Board's motion, granted the plaintiff's motion, and entered a judgment setting aside the Board's certification.
- The Board, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, solely on the issue of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the question of the District Court's jurisdiction.
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 over an original suit to set aside a National Labor Relations Board order where the Board is alleged to have acted in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to an express prohibition in the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Whittaker
Yes. A Federal District Court has jurisdiction to strike down an order of the Board made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act. The general rule precluding direct judicial review of NLRB certification decisions does not apply when the Board's action is not a mere decision within its jurisdiction, but an exercise of power that was specifically withheld by Congress. Section 9(b)(1) contains a clear and mandatory prohibition ('the Board shall not...') which the Board violated by including nonprofessional employees in the unit without the professionals' consent. This action deprived the professional employees of a right explicitly granted to them by Congress. The Court reasoned that an absence of district court jurisdiction would result in a 'sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress had created,' as the statutory review process is not within the employees' control and thus provides no certain remedy for this specific injury. When Congress provides a clear statutory right and a prohibition on agency conduct, it must be inferred that it intended for judicial protection against agency action taken in excess of delegated powers.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. Federal District Courts lack jurisdiction over such suits because Congress intended to strictly limit judicial review of Board certifications to prevent delays in the collective bargaining process. The legislative history of the Wagner Act and the Taft-Hartley amendments demonstrates a deliberate congressional choice to bar direct review, allowing it only after an unfair labor practice order has been issued. The majority's decision opens a 'gaping hole' in this statutory scheme, inviting parties to use litigation as a dilatory tactic to frustrate the national policy of promoting industrial peace. This case is parallel to Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, where the Court found no jurisdiction even when the challenge was based on an alleged statutory misinterpretation. The 'sacrifice or obliteration' of a right language applies only when Congress creates a right but provides no tribunal for its enforcement; here, Congress created both the right and a 'precise machinery'—the NLRB with its specific, limited review process—for its protection.
Analysis:
This case, Leedom v. Kyne, establishes a narrow but significant exception to the general principle of non-reviewability of NLRB representation proceedings. It allows for direct judicial review in a district court when the Board acts 'ultra vires,' meaning it violates an express and unambiguous statutory command. This 'Kyne exception' provides a crucial check on agency power, ensuring that the NLRB cannot act in direct contravention of the National Labor Relations Act. However, as the dissent predicted, this decision also opened the door for parties to frame their disagreements with Board decisions as violations of statutory mandates, potentially leading to the very litigation delays that Congress sought to avoid.
Unlock the full brief for Leedom et al., Members of the National Labor Relations Board, v. Kyne