Millis v. Inland Empire District Council

EDGERTON, Associate Justice. Appellee unions ask a mandatory injunction requiring appellants, the members of the National Labor Relations Board, to set aside a certification, following an election, of the collective bargaining representatives of certain employees of Pot-latch Forests, Inc., a large logging and lumbering concern in Idaho. The complaint also asks for a declaratory judgment that the certification is void. It attacks the sufficiency of the hearings which the Board held in connection with the election. It states that the employer has bargained with appellee unions in the past and will be deterred by the Board’s certificate from doing so in the future, and asserts that this will cause irreparable injury to appellees. The District Court declined to dismiss the complaint on appellants’ motion. We think this was error. The National Labor Relations Act authorizes judicial review of the Board’s certification if, but only if, the Board finds unfair labor practices and makes its certification the basis of an order with respect to such practices. §§ 9 (d), 10(c), 49 Stat. 453, 454, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 159(d) 160(c). There is no such finding or order in this case. We think the statutory review is exclusive. In American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 308 U.S. 401, 412, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347, the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question whether the Board’s mere certification of collective bargaining representatives could be reviewed in a suit like the present one. But we think the question is now foreclosed by Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, which held that the District Court had no power to review a similar certification of the National Mediation [540] Board. Reilly v. Millis, - U.S.App.D.C. -, 144 F.2d 259; Cf. Employers Group of Motor Freight Carriers, Inc., v. National War Labor Board, - U.S.App.D.C. -, 143 F.2d 145. Reversed.