United States Supreme Court Case Union vs Muhall

8/13/2019 United States Supreme Court Case Union vs Muhall

1/69

1

Official - Subject to Review

1 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES

2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

3

4

UNI TE HERE LOCAL 355,

Pet i t i oner

:

: No. 12- 99

5 v . :

6

7

MARTI N MULHALL, ET AL. :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

8

9

10

Washi ngt on, D. C.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

11 The above- ent i t l ed mat t er came on f or or al

12

13

argument bef ore the Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates

at 10: 03 a. m.

14 APPEARANCES:

15

16

RI CHARD G. McCRACKEN, ESQ. , San Fr anci sco, Cal i f orni a;

on behal f of Pet i t i oner .

17

18

19

20

21

22

MI CHAEL R. DREEBEN, ESQ. , Deput y Sol i ci t or General ,

Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Washi ngt on, D. C. ; f or Uni t ed

St at es, as ami cus cur i ae, suppor t i ng Pet i t i oner .

WI LLI AM L. MESSENGER, ESQ. , Spr i ngf i el d, Vi r gi ni a; on

behal f of Respondent s.

23

24

25

Alderson Reporting Company


2/69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2


C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGERI CHARD G. McCRACKEN, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OFMI CHAEL R. DREEBEN, ESQ. ,

For Uni t ed St at es, as ami cus cur i ae, 16suppor t i ng t he Pet i t i oner

ORAL ARGUMENT OFWI LLI AM L. MESSENGER, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Respondent s 26REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFRI CHARD G. McCRACKEN, ESQ.

On behal f of t he Pet i t i oner 53



3/69

Official - Subject to Review3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S2 ( 10: 03 a. m. ) 3 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: We wi l l hear 4 ar gument f i r st i n Case 12- 99. Uni t e Her e Local 355 v. 5 Mul hal l . 6 Mr . McCr acken?7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF RI CHARD G. McCRACKEN8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TI ONER9 MR. McCRACKEN: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may

10 i t pl ease t he Cour t : 11 Many empl oyers and uni ons f i nd agr eement s12 such as t hi s usef ul t o avoi d conf l i ct dur i ng or gani zi ng13 campai gns. They ar e ef f i ci ent . They avoi d t he har d14 f eel i ngs t hat come i n many cont est ed or gani zi ng15 campai gns and ther eby cr eat e a good envi r onment f or 16 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng. They ser ve t he cor e obj ect i ves17 of t he Labor Management Rel at i ons Act , t hose bei ng18 f r eedom of cont r act s, or gani zi ng empl oyees f or 19 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng, and l abor peace. 20 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I - - I t hi nk t her e' s21 subst ant i al f or ce t o t hat ar gument . But can we t al k22 j ust about proper t y j ust f or a mi nut e, j ust i n t he23 abst r act ? I sn' t i t t r ue t hat what you have mi ght become24 pr oper t y when you t r ade i t ? I f you t ake a pi ct ur e of a25 cel ebr i t y on a st r eet , t hat ' s your r i ght t o do so. But



4/69

4


1 you can' t sel l i t . Maybe t hat ' s not qui t e t he - - t he2 r i ght anal ogy. But her e, what , as you poi nt out , i s3 f ai r l y st andar d i n l abor r el at i ons, has been t ur ned i nt o4 pr oper t y, ar guabl y, by t he par t i es. 5 Coul d t he par t i es say t hat we' l l pay you -

6 t he empl oyer say we' l l pay you $100, 000 to get out of7 t he r ecogni t i on agr eement ? That woul d be pr opert y i n an8 economi st sense. Now, i t mi ght be a vi ol at i on of t he9 Labor Act .

10 MR. McCRACKEN: Yeah. That exampl e woul d11 def i ni t el y be a vi ol at i on of Secti on 302. I f t he12 empl oyer gave t he uni on $100, 000 to not organi ze, t hat 13 woul d be exact l y l i ke t he - - case f r om 1957 f r om t he14 Four t h Ci r cui t . 15 J USTI CE KENNEDY: But i n t he abst r act , 16 woul dn' t t hat be pr oper t y?17 MR. McCRACKEN: They - - money i s pr oper t y. 18 We don' t di sput e t hat at al l . 19 J USTI CE KENNEDY: And i sn' t t he t hi ng t hat ' s20 exchanged f or t he money al so proper t y?21 MR. McCRACKEN: The - - t hi s st at ut e f ocuses22 on what i s pai d, l ent or del i ver ed by the empl oyer t o -

23 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I ' m j ust t al ki ng about 24 common def i ni t i on, our common agreement as t o what 25 proper t y means.



5/69

5


1 MR. McCRACKEN: I n t hi s case, t he al l - - t he2 onl y t hi ng gi ven by the uni on was a pr omi se not t o3 st r i ke, pi cket or boycot t t hi s busi ness, t o hel p suppl y4 l abor i f t he empl oyer needed i t , not t o coer ce or 5 t hr eat en empl oyees i n t he cour se of t he or gani zi ng6 ef f or t and t o - - and t o ar bi t r at e i n t he event t hat 7 t here was any di sput e. 8 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: And t he l i st - - t he9 l i s t of - - t he l i s t of empl oyees.

10 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. That ' s what t he11 empl oyer promi sed t o gi ve t o t he uni on. And I was12 descr i bi ng t he t hi ngs t he uni on gave i n r esponse -

13 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Oh, I see. 14 MR. McCRACKEN: Because i t was a mut ual 15 agreement . 16 J USTI CE SCALI A: What - - what about suppor t 17 of t he l egi sl at i on t o per mi t sl ot machi nes? Was that a18 promi se t hat t he uni on made?19 MR. McCRACKEN: I t i s so al l eged and t here' s20 no quest i on t hat t he uni on di d t el l t he empl oyer and t he21 ot her empl oyer s t hat i t woul d wor k t o pass t he22 l egi sl at i on necessar y f or t hese empl oyer s t o get i nt o23 busi ness i n t he f i r st pl ace. Ther eby ser vi ng t hei r 24 i nt er est and al so t he uni on' s i nt er est i n havi ng an25 i ndust r y and wor ker s i n t he i ndust r y t o r epr esent .



6/69


1 J USTI CE SCALI A: But as t he case comes t o2 us, we assume t hat t her e was such a commi t ment by t he3 uni on. 4 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes, Your Honor . 5 J USTI CE SCALI A: Okay. 6 J USTI CE KENNEDY: So suppose t he company7 manuf act ur es wi dget s and the uni on says, we' l l spend8 $100, 000 adver t i si ng your wi dget s i f you so - - i f you9 si gn t he recogni t i on agr eement .

10 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. I t hi nk -

11 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I s t hat l awf ul ?12 MR. McCRACKEN: I t woul d be l awf ul because13 t he uni on woul d not have r ecei ved any wi dget s. I t woul d14 not have r ecei ved any ki nd of pr oper t y f r om t he15 empl oyer . I t woul d si mpl y have pr omi sed t o hel p t he16 empl oyer i n busi ness, somethi ng that happens a gr eat 17 deal i n l abor r el at i ons. 18 J USTI CE SCALI A: Wel l , t her e woul d have been19 a qui d pr o quo f or t hat , cer t ai nl y. I mean, t he uni on20 woul dn' t promi se t hat f or not hi ng. I t woul d get 21 somet hi ng i n exchange such as, as i n t hi s case, t he22 r i ght t o go on t he empl oyer ' s pr oper t y t o - - t o r ecrui t 23 uni on member s or - - or some ot her t hi ng of val ue f r om24 t he empl oyer , r i ght ?25 MR. McCRACKEN: Unquest i onabl y. And t hi s,



7/69

7


1 as I say, happens a l ot wi t h -

2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: So why i sn' t t hat t he3 pr oper t y t hat J ust i ce Kennedy r ef er r ed t o? They - - t he4 uni on pai d $100, 000 t o get t he i t ems t hat t he empl oyer 5 gave t hem. So ar en' t t hey val ued, somet hi ng t angi bl e, 6 val ued f or what t he uni on pai d f or i t ?7 MR. McCRACKEN: They ar e desi r ed by t he8 uni on. That does not make t hem t hi ngs of val ue t hat ar e9 pai d, l ent and del i ver ed by empl oyer s -

10 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: But why? Wel l , t he -

11 t he ar gument t hat J ust i ce Scal i a and Kennedy ar e12 r ef er r i ng t o i t , i s t hat t he empl oyer pai d wi t h t he13 empl oyee l i st , t he access t o t he f aci l i t y, t he pr omi ses14 not t o st r i ke t o get t he 100, 000. 15 MR. McCRACKEN: And -

16 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: I t hi nk t hat i s t he17 essence of - - because t he uni on payi ng money i s not a18 vi ol at i on of t he Act . 19 MR. McCRACKEN: The - - t here' s no20 pr ohi bi t i on agai nst t he uni on payi ng money t o an21 empl oyer . 22 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Ri ght . 23 MR. McCRACKEN: I t ' s onl y t he other way24 ar ound. And i n t hi s case, t he uni on spent $100, 000 of25 t i me of i t s st af f knocki ng on door s exer ci si ng i t s



8/69

8


1 speech and pet i t i on r i ght s i n or der t o get t hi s2 l egi sl at i on passed so t hat t he empl oyer coul d get i nt o3 busi ness. 4 J USTI CE SCALI A: Mr . McCr acken, t he5 Respondent ' s br i ef her e asser t s t hat t hese ki nds of6 pr ecer t i f i cat i on agr eement s have onl y been common si nce7 t he - - t he ' 90s. I s t hat accur at e t o you?8 MR. McCRACKEN: I t i s not , J ust i ce Scal i a. 9 Ther e - - t her e' s an ar t i cl e f r om t he Cornel l I ndust r i al

10 Labor Rel at i ons Depart ment by Eaton and Chr i skey showi ng11 t hat t hese agr eement s go back t o t he 1970s. Al so i n t he12 Si xt h Ci r cui t ' s - - t he Dana Cor por at i on case, you' l l see13 t hat t her e' s an expl anat i on t hat t he neut r al i t y14 agr eement between Dana and t he UAW was f i r st si gned i n15 1976. So t hese go back qui t e a bi t f ur t her . 16 Al so, t hey r eal l y go back i n a r udi ment ar y17 way much f ur t her t han t hat t o t he Li on Dr y Goods case, 18 whi ch was a - - an agr eement wi t h a non- i ncumbent uni on19 and depart ment st ore empl oyers i n Cl evel and that 20 pr ovi ded, among ot her t hi ngs, f or access. 21 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Somet i mes t here' s a22 conf l i ct bet ween t wo di f f er ent gr oups t hat want t o23 uni oni ze t he same wor kf or ce, r i ght ?24 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. 25 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: How woul d t hi s wor k



9/69

9


1 i n t hat case? Let ' s say t he empl oyer gave - - ent er ed i n2 an agr eement l i ke t hi s wi t h one uni on that want ed to3 organi ze t he same wor kf orce but not t he ot her . 4 MR. McCRACKEN: The NLRB has deal t wi t h t hat 5 qui t e a f ew t i mes and takes t he posi t i on and has6 r equi r ed empl oyer s t o gi ve equal r i ght s t o bot h uni ons. 7 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Doesn' t t hat suggest 8 i t ' s a t hi ng of val ue i n - - i n t hi s cont ext ?9 MR. McCRACKEN: I t ' s cer t ai nl y not a t hi ng

10 of val ue i n t he sense of mar ket abi l i t y, because t he one11 uni on coul d not sel l i t t o t he second uni on because the12 ot her uni on coul d get i t f r ee f r om t he empl oyer because13 t he empl oyer must gi ve equal r i ght s t o al l comer s. 14 J USTI CE KAGAN: I n t he t ypi cal case, how15 i mpor t ant i s an agr eement l i ke t hi s t o t he uni on? How16 much does i t i ncr ease t he l i kel i hood t hat t he uni on wi l l 17 be sel ect ed as t he excl usi ve bar gai ni ng r epr esent at i ve?18 MR. McCRACKEN: The same ar t i cl e t hat I 19 ment i oned, J ust i ce Kagan, shows t hat t he di f f er ent i al i s20 bet ween about - - about 67 per cent success r at e i n NLRB21 el ect i ons and about a 76 percent success r ate under 22 t hese agr eement s. 23 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Ar e t he24 agr eement s - - ar e t he agr eement s uni f or m or do t hey have25 var yi ng el ement s?



10/69


1 MR. McCRACKEN: Ther e ar e some t hi ngs t hat 2 ar e qui t e st andar d. 3 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: I s - - i s t he car d4 check pr ovi si on st andar d?5 MR. McCRACKEN: I t i s f ound i n most 6 agr eement s, neut r al i t y somewhat l ess so, but st i l l i n7 t he vast maj or i t y of t hem. 8 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I don' t - - I t hi nk t hi s i s9 sl i ght l y di f f er ent f r om J ust i ce Kagan, but can you gi ve

10 us some i ndi cat i on of how of t en empl oyers make t hese11 agr eement s? That ' s pr obabl y a har d st at i st i c t o - - t o12 col l ect because t her e ar e so many var i abl es. 13 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. But I can - - I can14 t el l you f r om my exper i ence, i f I may, t hat t hese15 agr eement s ar e pr eval ent i n t he hospi t al i t y i ndust r y16 bot h i n hot el s and casi nos, and t hat al l of t he maj or 17 hotel compani es have ent ered i nt o t hese and t he maj or 18 casi no compani es as wel l . 19 J USTI CE KAGAN: Why i s t hat ?20 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Mr . McCr acken, coul d21 you - - coul d you t el l - - t el l us about t hi s part i cul ar 22 cont r act , because as f ar as I can f at hom f r om what we23 have i t expi r ed at l east a year ago and t her e was -

24 t her e was no recogni t i on, t her e was no el ect i on; i s t hat 25 r i ght ?



11/69

11


1 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes, t hat ' s cor r ect . 2 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: So, ar e we deal i ng wi t h a3 l i ve case consi der i ng t hat t he - - t he agr eement has4 expi r ed?5 MR. McCRACKEN: J ust i ce Gi nsbur g, t he6 compl ai nt i n t hi s case pr ays f or t wo di f f er ent f or ms of7 r el i ef . One i s t hat t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s agr eement 8 not be honor ed. But t he second i s t hat t he uni on never 9 demand or r equest or r ecei ve any of t hese t hi ngs, t hat

10 i s neut r al i t y, names and addr esses, or access, 11 r egardl ess of an agr eement . 12 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: So what woul d be - - what 13 woul d be t he r el i ef ?14 MR. McCRACKEN: The r el i ef - - i f t hi s case15 went f or war d and was f ound mer i t or i ous, t he r el i ef woul d16 be an i nj unct i on agai nst t he uni on f r om ever aski ng an17 empl oyer f or - - t hi s empl oyer f or neut r al i t y or f or t he18 names and addr esses of empl oyees or f or any f orm of19 access t o t he pr emi ses and not -

20 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Because - - i s i t on t he21 t heor y t hat i t di d i t once, so i t mi ght do i t agai n? I s22 that -

23 MR. McCRACKEN: The - - I bel i eve t hat t he24 t heor y that t he pl ai nt i f f has her e i s t hat an empl oyer 25 may never gi ve t hese thi ngs, whet her i t ' s i n an



12/69

12


1 agr eement or not i n an agr eement , t hat even i f - - par don2 me. 3 J USTI CE ALI TO: Woul d Mr . Mul hal l have t o4 f ace an i mmi nent t hr eat i n or der f or hi m t o have5 st andi ng?6 MR. McCRACKEN: 7 J USTI CE ALI TO: 8 i mmi nent at t hi s t i me?9 MR. McCRACKEN:

10 J USTI CE ALI TO: 11 at t hi s t i me?12 MR. McCRACKEN:

He woul d, Your Honor . And why i s t he t hr eat

I ' msor r y?Why i s t he t hreat i mmi nent

Your Honor , we - - we13 advocat ed dur i ng an ear l i er phase of t hi s case t hat 14 t here was no st andi ng. 15 J USTI CE ALI TO: What i s your posi t i on now?16 MR. McCRACKEN: We - - we st i l l do not 17 bel i eve t hat he has st andi ng, because ther e i s no18 i mmi nent har m her e. The har m t hat he - - he al l eges i s19 t hat he wi l l be ul t i mat el y f or ced i nt o a col l ect i ve20 bar gai ni ng si t uat i on t hat he doesn' t want . However , 21 t hat coul d onl y occur i f t he uni on succeeded i n22 convi nci ng a maj or i t y of hi s co- empl oyees t hat t hey23 shoul d uni oni ze and t he empl oyer gave recogni t i on and24 t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement was negot i at ed. 25 Onl y - - onl y af ter - - so - - so i mmi nence i s - - i s very



13/69

13


1 di st ant her e.

2 J USTI CE KAGAN: Di d you al so r ai se i n an

3 ear l i er st age an ar gument t hat he had no pr i vat e r i ght

4 of act i on?

5 MR. McCRACKEN: We di d not .

6 J USTI CE KAGAN: That has never been

7 l i t i gat ed?

8 MR. McCRACKEN: I t hasn' t - - i t has been

9 l i t i gat ed. I t ' s been - - i t ' s a poi nt t hat ' s been rai sed

10 and r ej ected by al l t he cour t s t o consi der i t , l ar gel y

11 because of t he Cour t ' s - - t hi s Cour t ' s st at ement i n

12 At ki nson ver sus Si ncl ai r Ref i ni ng. Now, i t was di ct um,

13 but i t has - - i t ' s somet hi ng t hat has been accept ed by

14 al l of t he cour t s.

15 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But not i n t hi s - - not i n

16 t hi s case. I t wasn' t r ai sed i n t hi s case.

17 MR. McCRACKEN: I t was not r ai sed i n t hi s

18 case. I nst ead, st andi ng was r ai sed.

19 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: And Si ncl ai r i s of a

20 cer t ai n age bef or e thi s Cour t l ooked mor e car ef ul l y at

21 t he i mpl i cat i on of pr i vat e r i ght s of act i on.

22 MR. McCRACKEN: That ' s t r ue, J ust i ce

23 Gi nsbur g. But t he Cour t i n t he DeMasse case i n 1993

24 i nvol vi ng whet her t r ust f unds coul d be admi ni st er ed by

25 t he j udi ci ar y, essent i al l y, under Sect i on 302( e) assumed



14/69

14


1 t he exi st ence of a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on. And t he2 Cour t deci ded t hat i t was - - i t was not pr oper f or t he3 cour t s t o - - t o get past t he poi nt of t he f or mat i on of4 t he t r ust and engage i n t r ust f und admi ni st r at i on, but 5 i t was assumed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f had a r i ght t o sue. 6 J USTI CE ALI TO: Why woul dn' t t he r i ght t o7 use pr i vat e pr oper t y i n a way t hat ot her wi se woul dn' t be8 al l owed const i t ut e a t hi ng of val ue? Suppose t he -

9 what t he empl oyer gave the uni on was a l ease wel l -

10 wel l bel ow mar ket r at e on pr oper t y f or use as t he - - as11 a uni on of f i ce. Woul d t hat qual i f y as a t hi ng of val ue?12 MR. McCRACKEN: I t woul d qual i f y both as a13 t hi ng of val ue and one t hat i s pai d, l ent , or del i ver ed14 by the empl oyer t o the uni on. 15 J USTI CE ALI TO: So what ' s t he di f f erence16 her e? Ther e' s a - - t her e' s t he use of - - t her e' s t he17 conveyance of a cer t ai n pr oper t y r i ght . Why doesn' t 18 t hat const i t ut e a t hi ng of val ue?19 MR. McCRACKEN: Because t he uni on r eal l y20 onl y had a r i ght of access, not any excl usi ve possessi on21 of any pr oper t y, and onl y f or t he ver y l i mi t ed pur pose22 of communi cat i ng wi t h empl oyees about t hei r Sect i on 723 r i ght s. 24 J USTI CE ALI TO: But i t ' s st i l l - - i t ' s a25 l esser pr oper t y r i ght , but i sn' t i t a pr oper t y r i ght ?



15/69


1 What i f t he - - what i f t he empl oyer sol d t o a cat er i ng2 company t he r i ght t o dr i ve l unch t r ucks ont o i t s3 pr emi ses t o sel l sandwi ches and cof f ee t o t he empl oyees? 4 Woul dn' t t hat be a pr oper t y r i ght ?5 MR. McCRACKEN: Not under Fl or i da l aw, Your 6 Honor . The - - because i t woul d onl y, at most , be a7 l i cense. No i nt er est i n r eal pr oper t y woul d be gi ven. 8 J USTI CE ALI TO: Al l r i ght . Wel l , i sn' t a9 l i cense a t hi ng of val ue?

10 MR. McCRACKEN: A l i cense may be a t hi ng of11 val ue t hat - - t hat i s pai d, l ent or del i ver ed. I n t hi s12 case, t here was not a l i cense so much as t here was a13 wai ver or f or bear ance of t he empl oyer ' s r i ght t o14 excl ude. The uni on di d not r ecei ve or accept any15 empl oyer pr oper t y. I t di dn' t -

16 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Wel l , t hat ' s t r ue of al l 17 pr oper t y owner s. I have a r i ght t o wai ve my r i ght t o18 excl ude you f r om t he pr oper t y. That ' s - - t hat ' s19 pr oper t y - - t hat ' s a pr oper t y r i ght . And - - and i t can20 become so when I - - when I char ge f or i t . 21 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. I t i s your pr opert y22 r i ght , but t he uni on di d not obt ai n your r i ght t o23 excl ude. I t di d not obt ai n t hat pr oper t y r i ght . I t -

24 i t obt ai ned t he r i ght t o be t her e t o - - not t o any25 excl usi ve ar ea, but your pr oper t y r i ght t o excl ude



16/69

16


1 r emai ned i n your hands. 2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel , i t ' s cl ear t hat 3 t her e' s some di f f i cul t y i n def i ni ng t he l i mi t s of4 pr oper t y. Ther e ar e some t hi ngs t hat I t hi nk have val ue5 even t hough t hey may not have mar ket val ue. For 6 exampl e, an empl oyer br i bi ng a uni on st ewar d by of f er i ng7 hi m a f avor abl e wor k schedul e or - - or days of f t hat ar e8 a weekend or somethi ng that ' s val uabl e t o t he wor ker but 9 doesn' t necessar i l y have an obj ect i ve val ue.

10 The government ci t es Cr edi t Sui sse v. 11 Bi l l i ng i n i t s br i ef . When you get up on r ebut t al , I 12 want t o t al k to you about t he - - t he l aw t hat has 13 devel oped i n that case and why i t doesn' t appl y her e. 14 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. 15 Thank you, Your Honor . 16 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel . 17 MR. McCRACKEN: May I r eser ve my r emai ni ng18 t i me?19 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Yes, of cour se. 20 MR. McCRACKEN: Thank you ver y much. 21 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Mr . Dr eeben. 22 ORAL ARGUMENT OF MI CHAEL R. DREEBEN, 23 FOR UNI TED STATES, AS AMI CUS CURI AE, 24 SUPPORTI NG THE PETI TI ONER25 MR. DREEBEN: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may i t



17/69

17


1 pl ease t he Cour t : 2 Sect i on 302 cannot be r ead i n i sol at i on f r om3 t he r emai nder of t he l abor l aws. The Uni t ed St at es does4 not di sput e t hat i f al l t hi s Cour t had t o l ook at was5 t he wor ds " t hi ng of val ue" i n Sect i on 302, t he pr omi ses6 t hat wer e at i ssue i n t hi s case coul d be vi ewed as7 t hi ngs of val ue and, wi t h a l i t t l e bi t of st r et chi ng of8 t he l anguage, coul d be vi ewed as pai d, l ent , or 9 del i ver ed.

10 J USTI CE ALI TO: Wel l , bef ore you get t oo11 much i nt o t he mer i t s, coul d - - does t he Uni t ed St at es12 have a posi t i on on whet her t hi s case sat i sf i es Ar t i cl e13 3. 14 MR. DREEBEN: We don' t , J ust i ce Al i t o. The15 El event h Ci r cui t di d hol d t hat Mul hal l had st andi ng and16 t her e - - we r ai sed a quest i on of whet her t he case i s17 moot at t he cer t i or ar i st age as a reason why thi s Cour t 18 may not want t o t ake t he case. But we have not dr i l l ed19 deepl y enough i nt o i t t o have a posi t i on on t hat 20 quest i on. 21 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Does t he Uni t ed Stat es22 have a posi t i on on t he i mpl i cat i on of a pr i vat e r i ght of23 act i on under 302?24 MR. DREEBEN: J ust i ce Gi nsbur g, i t seems t o25 have been accept ed hi st or i cal l y and, as my co- counsel



18/69

18


1 ment i oned, i t was r ef er enced i n di ct um by t hi s Cour t ; 2 i t ' s been accept ed by t he l ower cour t s. I t hi nk i f t hi s3 Cour t wer e l ooki ng at t he l anguage of t he st at ut e t oday, 4 Sect i on 10( e) of Sect i on 302( e) of t he st at ut e, whi ch i s5 on page 11a of - - of our br i ef , gi ves t he di st r i ct 6 cour t s j ur i sdi cti on t o hear vi ol at i ons of t hi s case -

7 of t hi s st at ut e, and cour t s have assumed t hat pr i vat e8 par t i es coul d i nvoke t hat . 9 I f t he Cour t wer e l ooki ng at t hat af r esh,

10 I ' m not sur e t hat i t woul d r each t hat r esul t . But t her e11 i s a l ot of i nk on t he page wi t h r espect t o i t . The12 El event h Ci r cui t di d not r each t hat i ssue and i t doesn' t 13 seem t o be squar el y pr esent ed her e. But what i s14 squar el y pr esent ed her e i s whet her t he Cour t shoul d r ead15 Sect i on 302 as a f r eest andi ng pr ovi si on di vor ced f r om16 t he cent r al pol i cy of t he l abor l aws and t he remai ni ng17 pr ovi si ons i n t he l abor l aws. 18 Now, as J ust i ce Sot omayor -

19 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Ar e you sayi ng " t hi ng of20 val ue" means somethi ng di f f erent i n 302 t han i t means21 el sewher e i n - - i n t he code?22 MR. DREEBEN: I t hi nk -

23 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I - - I can see i f t her e24 was a conspi r acy t o ext or t t hese benef i t s, t hat t he25 gover nment woul d t ake the posi t i on t hat t here was a



19/69

19


1 cr i me because t her e was a t hi ng of val ue, a t hi ng of2 pr oper t y. 3 MR. DREEBEN: Wel l , under t hi s st at ut e, t he4 gover nment ' s posi t i on i s t hat t he thr ee t er ms t hat ar e5 at i ssue - - "neut r al i t y, " "access, " and "empl oyee l i st " 6 - - ar e not pr ohi bi t ed by Sect i on 302. Pr obabl y t he best 7 way to r each t hat concl usi on i s t o det er mi ne t hat 8 Congr ess di d not i nt end t hat t hese t hr ee thi ngs be9 vi ewed as t hi ngs of val ue under t he st at ut e.

10 Cer t ai nl y, r ead i n i sol at i on, t he wor ds11 " t hi ng of val ue" ar e ver y br oad. I n ot her st at ut es, 12 t hey cover i nt angi bl es. We woul d have no pr obl em13 t r eat i ng t he t hi ngs her e as t hi ngs of val ue under 14 st at ut es or under 302 i f t hat ' s t he onl y t hi ng t hat 15 exi st ed. 16 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: I sn' t Bi l l i ng your best 17 ar gument , t he f r amewor k of Bi l l i ng?18 MR. DREEBEN: Yes, I t hi nk i t i s, J ust i ce19 Sot omayor . What t he Cour t has t o do her e, as i t di d i n20 t he Bi l l i ng case, i s read mul t i pl e st at ut es t oget her i n21 or der t o har moni ze t hem. And j ust as i n Bi l l i ng, t he22 Cour t sai d, wel l , t he ant i t r ust l aws l i t er al l y do appl y23 her e, t he secur i t i es under wr i t i ng act i vi t y coul d vi ol at e24 t he ant i t r ust l aws. 25 The Cour t l ooked at i t i n l i ght of ot her



20/69

20


1 pol i ci es r ef l ect ed i n t he secur i t i es l aws and det er mi ned2 t hat Congr ess, havi ng est abl i shed an i nt r i cat e f r amewor k3 f or r egul at i on of t he ver y same act i vi t y i n t he4 secur i t i es l aws, woul d not have i nt ended t he ant i t r ust 5 l aws t o come al ong and suppl ant i t . 6 And her e what you have are -

7 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Some peopl e have8 suggest ed t hat Bi l l i ngs i s l i mi t ed t o t he ant i t r ust 9 area.

10 MR. DREEBEN: I don' t t hi nk t hat -

11 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: And how do you r espond12 t o t hat bel i ef and - - and how do you convi nce us t o13 expand t he doct r i ne out si de i t s t r adi t i onal cont ext ?14 MR. DREEBEN: Bi l l i ng i s si mpl y an15 appl i cat i on of t hi s Cour t ' s r esponsi bi l i t y t o di vi ne16 Congr ess' s i nt ent based on l anguage, st r uct ur e, and17 hi st or y and pol i cy of t he r el evant l aws. And her e, al l 18 of t hose thi ngs when r ead t oget her i ndi cat e t hat 19 agr eement s by par t i es t o set t he gr ound r ul es f or an20 or gani zi ng campai gn do not const i t ut e pr ohi bi t ed t hi ngs. 21 J USTI CE BREYER: Fi ne. But what i s t he -

22 suppose the empl oyer had wr i t t en a check f or $100, 000 t o23 t he uni on and everythi ng el se i s t he same. Now, you24 ask, why di d he do t hat ? He sai d because they have t o25 have the money so t hat t hey can r un t he organi zi ng



21/69

21


1 campai gn al ong t he l i nes t hat ever yone want s. I s t hat 2 covered or not?3 MR. DREEBEN: Yes. That woul d be a4 vi ol at i on. 5 J USTI CE BREYER: So t hen when I wr i t e t he6 opi ni on t hat says t hat i s cover ed, but t he access, t he7 empl oyer l i st s, and t he -

8 MR. DREEBEN: Neut r al i t y. 9 J USTI CE BREYER: - - yes, and t he neut r al i t y,

10 t hose ar e not cover ed because. $100, 000 i s, but t hey11 aren' t because; and then what comes af t er t he "because"?12 MR. DREEBEN: Two t hi ngs, J ust i ce Br eyer , 13 and t hey' r e bot h equal l y i mpor t ant . Fi r st of al l , 14 t he - - t he pr ovi si on of money i s usef ul t o t he uni on i n15 any number of ways and gi ves r i se t o t he dangers of16 mi suse. 17 J USTI CE BREYER: No, no. We speci f y how18 t hey' r e goi ng t o use i t . They' r e goi ng t o use i t j ust 19 t he way -

20 MR. DREEBEN: I t can' t be - - i t can' t be21 r est r i ct ed i n t hat way because t he or i gi ns of Sect i on22 302 came f r om-

23 J USTI CE BREYER: Okay. Okay. No. Cont i nue24 wi t h t he because. One, because money mi ght be a25 go- beyond. Okay. What ' s t he other?



22/69


23/69


1 agr eement , but i f a maj or i t y of t he wor kf or ce want s t o2 be organi zed and r epr esent ed by t hat uni on, and t he3 ar gument her e, as I under st and i t , i s t hat t hi s4 agr eement t ai nt s t hat pr ocess, i n par t i cul ar , by5 al l owi ng t he car d check pr ocedur e t hat i t has been6 argued exerci ses coer ci on agai nst empl oyees t o support 7 t he uni on. 8 MR. DREEBEN: Wel l , t hi s Cour t i n t he Gi ssel 9 Packi ng case many years ago r ej ect ed t hat argument . The

10 Nat i onal Labor s Rel at i on Boar d has r ej ect ed t hat 11 ar gument . Cer t ai nl y -

12 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: The ar gument t hat 13 t he car d check -

14 MR. DREEBEN: Car d check agreement s are15 i nher ent l y coer ci ve, yes. That has been r ej ect ed. 16 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , wi l l you -

17 wi l l you concede t hat t hey' r e mor e coer ci ve t han a18 secret bal l ot ?19 MR. DREEBEN: I don' t t hi nk t hey' r e coer ci ve20 at al l i nher ent l y. They may be -

21 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: The uni on organi zer 22 comes up t o you and says, wel l , here' s a card. You can23 check I want t o j oi n t he uni on, or t wo, I don' t want a24 uni on. Whi ch wi l l i t be? And t her e' s a bunch of your 25 f el l ow wor ker s gat her ed ar ound as you f i l l out t he car d.



24/69

24


1 MR. DREEBEN: Wel l , some woul d ar gue -

2 J USTI CE SCALI A: And he' s a bi g guy. 3 ( Laught er . ) 4 MR. DREEBEN: Some woul d ar gue t hat 5 empl oyer s al so have bi g guys and i t ' s ver y coer ci ve t o6 have your empl oyer i n t her e on t he f act or y f l oor 7 r emi ndi ng empl oyees dai l y t hat t hey' r e ver y ant i - uni on8 and t hat t her e ar e a l ot of cost s t o j oi ni ng a uni on. 9 And so t he - - t he pr ocess her e i s one i n whi ch, yes, t he

10 par t i es can go t o t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d and11 have an el ect i on. But t hi s Cour t i n t he Gi ssel Packi ng12 case, backed up by decades of Boar d l aw, has val i dated13 t hat car d check agr eement s are per f ect l y l egi t i mat e and14 may f aci l i t at e t he empl oyees' f r ee exer ci se of t hei r 15 choi ce t o have a uni on. 16 The agr eement i n t hi s case doesn' t r ecogni ze17 t he uni on. Al l t he agr eement does i s est abl i sh a18 per f ect l y l awf ul pr ocess, whi ch Respondent concedes19 woul d be a t hi ng of val ue, but he t hen has t o car ve i t 20 out f r om Sect i on 302, a vol unt ar y recogni t i on agr eement . 21 And t he access t hat i s gi ven t o t he pr oper t y, whi ch i s22 somet hi ng t hat empl oyer s l awf ul l y can do - - i t ' s t hei r 23 pr oper t y, t hey have t he r i ght t o do i t - - t hey pr ovi de24 i t so t hat t he empl oyees can get i nf or mat i on f r om t he25 uni on about uni oni zat i on. And t he empl oyee l i st serves



25/69

25


1 t he same thi ng. 2 And t hese t hi ngs - - access, empl oyee l i st , 3 neut r al i t y - - have been el ement s of Feder al l abor pol i cy4 f or decades. 5 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: One cur i ous t hi ng about 6 t he El event h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on i s i t di dn' t r ej ect . 7 I t ' s a - - i t ' s a cur i ous opi ni on and we ar e at an8 i nt er l ocut or y st age. But t he opi ni on r eads: "Empl oyer s9 and uni ons may set gr ound r ul es f or an organi zi ng

10 campai gn even i f t he empl oyer and uni on benef i t f r om t he11 agr eement . " So t hat t he El event h Ci r cui t seemed t o12 agr ee t hat t hese agr eement s ar e enf or ceabl e. But i t 13 sai d t hat i t can - - t hey can become i l l egal i f used i n a14 scheme to cor r upt . 15 MR. DREEBEN: Al l of t he cour t s of appeal s, 16 J ust i ce Gi nsbur g, have concl uded t hat ground r ul es17 agr eement s ar e i nher ent l y l awf ul . The El event h Ci r cui t 18 added a mot i ve- based l i mi t at i on on i t t hat r esponded t o19 a pol i cy t hat ' s j ust not r ef l ect ed i n t he l anguage of20 t he Act . 21 J USTI CE SCALI A: What about sl ot machi nes?22 You - - you ment i oned al l of t he ot her t hi ngs promi sed, 23 but not - - not t he pr omi se t o suppor t l egi sl at i on. 24 MR. DREEBEN: That ' s r i ght . The uni on' s25 pr omi ses are not compr ehended by Sect i on 302. Al l



26/69


1 t hat ' s at i ssue her e i s whet her i t ' s a Feder al cr i me f or 2 an empl oyer t o say t o a uni on: You guys want t o3 or gani ze? I wi l l l et you come i nt o my pl ant and addr ess 4 t he empl oyees. I n f act , bet t er yet , we wi l l have a5 debat e, management on one si de, uni on on t he ot her . 6 Come i nt o our hal l t o do t hat . That woul d be a Federal 7 cr i me under Respondent s' vi ew. 8 Thank you. 9 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel .

10 Mr . Messenger . 11 ORAL ARGUMENT OF WI LLI AM L. MESSENGER12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS13 MR. MESSENGER: Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce, and may14 i t pl ease t he Cour t : 15 Enf or ci ng Sect i on 302 i n t hi s case cannot 16 conf l i ct wi t h t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act . As17 UNI TE admi t s, or gani zi ng agr eement s such as t hi s ar e18 meant t o pr i vat i ze t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act and19 avoi d t he r epr esent at i onal pr ocedur es. The agr eement 20 her e expr essl y requi r es t hat t he empl oyer not pet i t i on21 f or a secr et bal l ot el ect i on, not f i l e unf ai r l abor 22 pr act i ces wi t h t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d, and23 al so pr ovi de assi st ance t o t he empl oyer - - or t o t he24 uni on, t hat he has no r i ght t o r ecei ve -

25 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: But , Mr . Messenger , you



27/69

27


1 ar e deal i ng wi t h a deci si on t hat seems t o uphol d2 or gani zi ng agr eement s. I j ust r ead t he passage and al l 3 t hat i t ' s sayi ng i s: Fi nd out i f i n t hi s case t her e was4 some cor r upt i on i nvol ved. But i t does say empl oyer s and5 uni ons may set gr ound rul es even i f t he empl oyer and the6 uni on benef i t f r om t he agr eement . 7 So you seem t o be const r ui ng t he El event h8 Ci r cui t deci si on t o say somet hi ng i t di dn' t say, t o say9 t hat or gani zi ng agr eement s vi ol at e 302.

10 MR. MESSENGER: Wel l , I woul d say t wo11 t hi ngs. Fi r st , t he i ssue of cour se ar e t he t hr ee12 i ndi vi dual pr ovi si ons, not or gani zi ng agr eement s as a13 whol e. The t hr ee t hi ngs at i ssue her e of cour se i s t he14 gag cl ause, t he use of pr oper t y, and t he i nf or mat i on, 15 not t he agreement . 16 But secondl y, t he El event h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on17 comes f r om i t s hol di ng t hat t hi s i nt angi bl e assi st ance18 can' t be del i ver ed, i t can onl y be pai d, and t her ef or e, 19 t he cour t hel d you needed t o show consi derat i on f or 20 payment . 21 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Wher e i s t hat ?22 MR. MESSENGER: I t ' s at t he El event h23 Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on, r i ght above t he sect i on t hat you j ust 24 r ead f r om, wher e t he cour t hel d t hat i t di dn' t bel i eve25 t hat t hi ngs coul d be del i ver ed, whi ch we di sagr ee wi t h,



28/69

28


1 but t hey can be pai d; and t her ef or e, i f consi der at i on i s2 gi ven, t hen you have a vi ol at i on. And t hen i t goes on3 t o say t hat consi der at i on woul d show t hat t he pur poses4 of t he st at ut e ar e i mpl i cat ed by t he t r ansact i on, 5 because i n t hat case t he uni on i s bei ng i nf l uenced by6 what t he empl oyer gave. 7 So t he El event h Ci r cui t , when i t sai d t hat 8 not al l gr ound r ul es agr eement s wi l l vi ol at e 302 was9 sayi ng t hat i f no consi der at i on was gi ven, t her e woul d

10 be no payment and t her ef or e no vi ol at i on i n t hat . 11 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: I t says - - i t says t hat , 12 at t he end of t hat passage, cur bi ng br i ber y and13 ext or t i on ar e i mpl i cat ed. 14 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. 15 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: And sai d t hat ' s what -

16 MR. MESSENGER: I f t her e i s consi der at i on. 17 So i f t he empl oyer gi ves t hi s assi st ance and t he uni on18 gi ves somet hi ng i n r et ur n - - f or exampl e, her e t he19 $100, 000 pol i t i cal campai gn and agr eement not t o20 st r i ke - - t hen i t becomes a payment , because the21 consi derat i on shows payment . 22 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: What i s your posi t i on on23 t he ef f ect of t he expi r at i on of t hi s agr eement ?24 MR. MESSENGER: I don' t bel i eve t hat i t 25 r ender s t he case moot , f or t wo r easons, t he f i r st of



29/69

29


1 whi ch i s t hat UNI TE has pendi ng a l awsui t t o compel 2 ar bi t r at i on i n whi ch i t i s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of t he3 agr eement t hat occur r ed bef or e i t expi r ed. And one of4 t he r emedi es t he uni on i s seeki ng i s t o have t he5 agr eement extended f or a l onger per i od of t i me, whi ch i s6 a r emedy i t r ecei ved bef or e. And t hat l awsui t i s 7 cur r ent l y pendi ng i n Feder al di st r i ct cour t . I t ' s been8 st ayed pendi ng t hese pr oceedi ngs. 9 And then t he second reason i s UNI TE

10 cont i nues t o demand t hi s or gani zi ng assi st ance. 11 302( b) ( 1) makes i t i l l egal f or a uni on t o demand a t hi ng12 of val ue, even i f i t doesn' t r ecei ve i t . UNI TE her e i s13 cl ear l y st i l l demandi ng t hat Mar di Gr as hel p i t or gani ze14 i t s empl oyees, so Mul hal l st i l l has st andi ng t o seek15 i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o st op t he uni on f r om demandi ng t hose16 t hi ngs. 17 J USTI CE SCALI A: Mr . Messenger , coul d -

18 coul d al l of t hese thi ngs t hat t he empl oyer gave t o t he19 uni on be i ncl uded i n a f i nal l y- negot i at ed col l ect i ve20 bar gai ni ng agr eement ? Coul dn' t t hat CBA say t hat t he21 uni on shal l have t he abi l i t y to appr oach empl oyees on22 t he si t e, t hat t he uni on shal l have access t o t he23 empl oyee l i st of t he empl oyer - - and what el se, what ' s24 t he t hi r d - - and t hat t he empl oyer wi l l not - - wi l l not 25 seek t o under mi ne t he uni on? Coul d al l of t hat be



30/69


1 i ncl uded i n a CBA?2 MR. MESSENGER: The f i r st t wo coul d because3 t he except i ons t o 302 st ar t t o appl y, t he except i ons4 f ound at 302( c) . For exampl e, access f or uni on st ewar ds5 has been uphel d under Sect i on ( c) ( 1) , whi ch al l ows f or 6 access t o uni on of f i ci al s i f by r eason of t hei r ser vi ce7 t o t he empl oyer . And so gi vi ng a uni on st eward use of8 pr oper t y t o admi ni st er t he cont r act and such has been9 uphel d. That case i s BASF v - - BASF Wyandot t e.

10 The i nf ormat i on. Dur i ng col l ect i ve11 bar gai ni ng, a uni on has a r i ght t o i nf or mat i on under 12 Sect i on AEP 5 of t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act . 13 Gi vi ng t hat i nf or mat i on woul d f al l under t he except i on14 f ound at ( c) ( 2) , whi ch pr ovi des f or t he r el ease of any15 cl ai m t hat a uni on may have. And so t he uni on has a16 l egal cl ai m t o t hat i nf or mat i on under t he NLRA, so i f17 t he empl oyer agr eed t o pr ovi de i t or di d pr ovi de i t , i t 18 woul d f al l under t hat except i on. 19 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Messenger , do I 20 underst and t he st r uct ur e of your argument t o be as21 f ol l ows: That whet her bef or e cer t i f i cat i on or 22 af t er war ds i n a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement al ong23 t he l i nes t hat J ust i ce Scal i a sai d, t he onl y t hi ng t hat 24 an empl oyer can pr omi se a uni on or agr ee t o pr ovi de to a25 uni on ar e t hi ngs t hat ar e speci f i cal l y aut hor i zed i n



31/69


1 ot her par t s of t he l abor l aw? I s t hat t he st r uctur e of2 your ar gument ?3 MR. MESSENGER: Yes, Your Honor . And4 because i n t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng, a uni on of cour se5 i s supposed to act as an empl oyee r epr esent at i ve and not 6 f or i t sel f , so most t er ms of col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng7 agr eement s go t o t he empl oyees, not t o t he uni on i t sel f . 8 302' s whol e pur pose or pr i mar y pur pose i s preci sel y t o9 pr event such sel f - deal i ng.

10 J USTI CE KAGAN: You see, I woul d have11 t hought t hat t he pr emi se and t he pol i ci es of t he l abor 12 l aws ar e to encour age a wi de var i ety of13 empl oyer / empl oyee agr eement s, both t hi ngs t hat ar e14 l i st ed i n t he l abor l aws, t hat ar e pr ovi ded f or i n t he15 l abor l aws, but many t hi ngs t hat ar e not ; t hat t he i dea16 i s t o get t hese par t i es t oget her t o reach agr eement s on17 a wi de var i et y of t hi ngs t hat mat t er t o t hem r egar dl ess 18 whet her t he l abor l aw speci f i cal l y r ef er s t o t hat . 19 MR. MESSENGER: Wel l , t he st r uct ur e -

20 J USTI CE KAGAN: I t seems sor t of t urni ng t he21 whol e t hi ng on i t s head t o say t hat t he onl y t hi ngs t hat 22 ar e al l owed i n t er ms of pr omi ses, whet her i n a23 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement or pr i or t o t hat , ar e24 t he t hi ngs t hat t he l aw i t sel f r equi r es. 25 MR. MESSENGER: Wel l , I bel i eve t hat i s t he



32/69

32


1 st r uct ur e of Sect i on 302. ( A) and ( b) ar e si mpl y a2 br i ght - l i ne gi f t ban, and t hen ( c) pr ovi des t he3 except i ons t o i t . And t hat sor t of st r uctur e f or a4 conf l i ct of i nt er est st at ut e i s r el at i vel y common. 5 And so t he common t erms of col l ect i ve6 bar gai ni ng agr eement s ei t her , A, del i ver not hi ng t o the7 uni on i t sel f but gi ve t hi ngs t o empl oyees such as wages, 8 or i n t he al t er nat i ve, does go t o t he uni on, i t has t o9 f al l under one of t he except i ons, and t her e' s

10 numer ous -

11 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel , why don' t -

12 why doesn' t t he Bi l l i ngs - - Bi l l i ng f r amewor k appl y13 beaut i f ul l y her e?14 MR. MESSENGER: Because -

15 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: What i t hol ds i s t hat 16 wher e t her e' s a regul at or y f r amewor k, and her e t her e i s, 17 t hat pr oduces st andar ds of conduct , goi ng t o J ust i ce18 Kagan' s poi nt , t hat al most al l of t he t hr ee t hi ngs t hat 19 you' r e ar gui ng agai nst ar e st andar ds of conduct t hat 20 have been appr oved by - - have been appr oved by t he21 gover nment , and when t hose conf l i ct wi t h t he separate22 Feder al st at ut e, t hen t hey ar e i mpl i ci t l y pr eempt ed, 23 essent i al l y. 24 Why doesn' t t hat doct r i ne do the work here?25 MR. MESSENGER: Wel l , f or t wo r easons, but



33/69

33


1 t he f i r st and most i mpor t ant i s t hat Sect i on 302 i s par t 2 of t he l abor l aw. I t was enact ed, of cour se, as par t of3 t he Taf t - Har t l ey Act and amended as part of t he Labor 4 Management Report i ng Di scl osur e Act . So you' r e not 5 t al ki ng about t wo di f f er ent st at ut or y schemes, as i n6 Bi l l i ng, where you had t he SEC l aw and you had t he7 ant i t r ust l aw. 302 i s Feder al l abor l aw. I t i s ever y8 bi t as much a Feder al l abor l aw as any pr ovi si on of t he9 Nat i onal Labor Rel at i on Act .

10 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: But we have conf l i ct i ng11 pr ovi si ons wi t hi n st andar d st at ut es anyway, so why12 doesn' t t he concept behi nd i t st i l l appl y?13 MR. MESSENGER: The concept woul d i f t her e14 was a di r ect conf l i ct bet ween t he gener al pr ohi bi t i on of15 302 and any r i ght gr ant ed by t he Nat i onal Labor 16 Rel at i ons Act . But i mpor t ant l y her e, not hi ng gi ves17 UNI TE any r i ght t o t he t hr ee t hi ngs i t demands f r om18 Mar di Gr as. So enf or ci ng 302 i n t hi s case cannot 19 conf l i ct wi t h t he NLRA. UNI TE has no r i ght t o20 i nf or mat i on f r om Mar di Gr as about i t s nonuni on21 empl oyees, no r i ght t o use i t s pr oper t y, as t hi s Cour t 22 hel d i n Lechmer e, and cer t ai nl y no r i ght t o cont r ol i t s23 communi cat i ons, as 8( c) of t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons24 Act says t hat even t he NLRB can' t cont r ol an empl oyee' s25 - - an empl oyer ' s communi cat i ons absent a t hr eat or



34/69

34


1 pr omi se of benef i t . 2 So t her e i s no conf l i ct her e. And a3 per suasi ve opi ni on, al t hough obvi ousl y not bi ndi ng, i s4 t he Si xt h Ci r cui t ' s opi ni on i n Mer cy Memor i al Hospi t al 5 wher e t he Si xt h Ci r cui t - - i n t hat case t he gener al 6 counsel of t he NLRB sai d t he empl oyer ' s conduct does not 7 vi ol ate t he NLRA and t he uni on br ought a 302 cl ai m8 anyway and t he Si xt h Ci r cui t sai d i t coul d br i ng t hat 9 cl ai m. 302 i s meant t o be i ndependent of t he Nat i onal

10 Labor Rel at i ons Act because t hey di dn' t gi ve t he NLRB11 any j ur i sdi ct i on over i t and doesn' t preempt . And t hey12 al so added i f i t di d pr eempt 302, 302 woul d be a dead13 l et t er . I mean, anyt hi ng Sect i on 302 deal s wi t h wi l l be14 covered by the NLRA -

15 J USTI CE BREYER: I t ' s not cover i ng. As I 16 under st and t he ar gument i t goes back t o l i ke17 J ur i sprudence 1. Can you have - - t he si gn says no18 vehi cl es i n t he par k. Okay? Does t hat appl y t o a J eep19 used as a war memor i al ? Answer , no. That ' s been t he20 l aw si nce t he t wel f t h t h cent ur y. You spi l l ed bl ood i n21 t he st r eet s of Bol ogna, a cr i me, but t hat ' s not 22 appl i cabl e t o t he bar ber . 23 Al l r i ght ? So, her e, I t hi nk what t hey' r e24 sayi ng i s that r ead t hi s st at ut e. You don' t have t o get 25 i nt o a metaphysi cal argument about t hi ngs of val ue;



35/69

35


1 r at her , t hose t hi ngs whi ch pl ay a cent r al r ol e i n t he2 organi zi ng campai gn are t hi ngs t hat are governed by the3 ot her par t s of t he NLRB and t o t hr ow t hem i n her e -

4 NLRA - - and t o t hr ow t hem i n her e i s goi ng t o creat e a5 mess. 6 Li st s, access, pr omi ses t o st ay neut r al ar e7 cent r al t o many aspect s of organi zi ng campai gns, and8 t her e ar e no mor e wi t hi n t hi s st at ut e, t hi s par t of t he9 t hi ng t han t he J eep on t he pedest al i s par t of t he no

10 vehi cl es i n t he par k. Now, t hat ' s what I under st and11 r oughl y t hei r argument t o be, i f I ' ve got i t r i ght . And12 what i s your r esponse?13 MR. MESSENGER: That not hi ng i n t he Nat i onal 14 Labor Rel at i ons Act gi ves t hem a r i ght t o t hat . 15 J USTI CE BREYER: I di dn' t say t hey had a16 r i ght . They di dn' t say t hey had a r i ght . 17 MR. MESSENGER: Exact l y. 18 J USTI CE BREYER: What t hey sai d was t he19 ki nds of pr oper t y or t hi ngs of val ue ar e at i ssue her e20 ar e t he ki nds of t hi ngs t hat pl ay i mpor t ant r ol es i n21 organi zi ng campai gns. And we needn' t go f ur t her t han22 t hat . We don' t have t o t al k about r i ght s t o i t . We23 don' t have t o t al k about who sai d what t o whom. I t ' s24 j ust t hat t hese ki nds of t hi ngs ar e or gani zi ng t hi ngs, 25 and t her ef or e t hey' r e out si de t he scope - -



36/69

36


1 MR. MESSENGER: But Sect i on -

2 J USTI CE BREYER: - - j ust l i ke t he J eep on3 t he pedest al . 4 MR. MESSENGER: But Sect i on 302 was5 speci f i cal l y amended i n 1959 to appl y t o uni on6 or gani zi ng. They added Sect i on 8( a) ( 2) t o extend t he7 pr ohi bi t i on t o uni ons t hat seek t o r epr esent . Sect i on8 8( a) ( 3) appl i es t o t hi ngs gi ven t o empl oyee commi t t ees9 t o i nf l uence empl oyees i n t hei r r i ght t o or gani ze or

10 bar gai n col l ect i vel y t hr ough r epr esent at i ves of t hei r 11 own choosi ng. 12 J USTI CE SCALI A: Yes. And I suppose - - I 13 suppose t hat woul d al so - - i t woul d al so f ol l ow i f -

14 i f - - wi t h no i ndi cat i on i n t he t ext , you si mpl y excl ude15 or gani zi ng - - t he or gani zi ng par t of l abor l aw. I guess16 i t woul d mean t hat t he - - t he uni on can cut a deal wi t h17 t he empl oyer t hat i f t he empl oyer gi ves t hem a f r eehand18 and - - and assi st s them i n - - i n or gani zi ng, t he uni on19 wi l l pr omi se not t o - - not t o seek a r ai se i n wages or 20 not t o seek i nsurance cover age or what ever . I guess 21 t hat woul d al so be par t of t he or gani zi ng campai gn, 22 r i ght , so i t woul d be okay. 23 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. An organi zi ng24 except i on - - an or gani zi ng except i on t o Sect i on 30225 woul d t ear a massi ve hol e i n t he st at ut e. I t ' s



37/69

37


1 di f f i cul t t o t hi nk of anyt hi ng t hat uni ons val ue mor e2 t han an empl oyer ' s assi st ance wi t h uni oni zi ng mor e3 empl oyees i nt o t he uni on. 4 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Then may I ask you, 5 Mr . Messenger , t o cl ar i f y, because I t hought you t ol d me6 bef ore t hat some organi zi ng agr eement s ar e okay. Ar e7 you t aki ng t he posi t i on t hat al l or gani zi ng8 agr eement s - - i n ot her wor ds, ar e you t aki ng a posi t i on9 i n opposi t i on t o what I r ead f r om t he El event h Ci r cui t ,

10 t hat or gani zi ng agr eement s can be val i d?11 MR. MESSENGER: Yes, because t he i ssue, I 12 bel i eve, wi t h any agr eement i s each par t i cul ar t er m has13 t o be l ooked at i ndi vi dual l y. So, f or exampl e, i f t he14 i ssue was a par t i cul ar t er m of a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng15 agr eement i l l egal , t he quest i on woul d be phr ased, ar e16 col l ect i vel y bar gai ni ng agr eement s l egal . Same t hi ng17 wi t h or gani zi ng agr eement s. Ever y t er m i s di f f er ent . 18 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: So you - - you do you want 19 us t o say t hat - - t hat t o t he ext ent t hat t he El event h20 Ci r cui t sai d, "Empl oyer s and uni ons may set gr ound r ul es21 f or an organi zi ng campai gn, even i f t he empl oyer and22 uni on benef i t f r om t he agr eement , " you want us t o say23 t hat t hat was wr ong. 24 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. Because t hat , agai n, 25 went back t o i t s payment hol di ng, and Mul hal l ' s posi t i on



38/69

38


1 i s t hat t he Cour t shoul d over r ul e t he l ower cour t ' s2 deci si on t hat or gani zi ng assi st ance cannot be del i ver ed. 3 A l i st of i nf or mat i on can, of cour se, be del i ver ed, 4 so -

5 J USTI CE KAGAN: So, Mr . Messenger , j ust t o6 make sure I under st and t hat , you' r e sayi ng t hat 7 r egar dl ess of whet her t her e was a bar gai n i n t hi s case, 8 f or get t he bar gai n. Let ' s j ust say t hat t her e was an9 empl oyer . Thi s empl oyer sai d, you know, I t hi nk t hat my

10 empl oyees shoul d have a r i ght t o l i st en t o you and t o11 deci de f or t hemsel ves whether t hey want t o be12 r epr esent ed by - - by t he uni on, so I ' m i nvi t i ng t he13 uni on ont o my pr emi ses. J ust si mpl e as t hat . You' r e14 sayi ng t hat t he empl oyer cannot do that . 15 MR. MESSENGER: That ' s cor r ect . 16 Consi der at i on, obvi ousl y, can show val ue, and i t coul d17 show t owar ds t he pur pose of t he st at ut e. But 30 -

18 J USTI CE KAGAN: But we - - we don' t need19 t hi s. I mean, you say -

20 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. 21 J USTI CE KAGAN: - - of cour se, t hi s i s 22 i mpor t ant t o t he uni on, so your ar gument i s t hat i t 23 f al l s wi t hi n t he st at ut e, r egar dl ess of whet her t her e' s24 any consi der at i on or qui d pr o quo. 25 MR. MESSENGER: Exact l y. Sor r y.



39/69

39


1 J USTI CE KAGAN: I ' m sor r y. 2 MR. MESSENGER: Exact l y. Because 302 i s3 st r uct ur ed not as a br i ber y stat ut e t hat r equi r es a qui d4 pr o quo. I t ' s a gi f t ban t o ensur e -

5 J USTI CE KAGAN: So t hi s i s t o say t hat t he6 Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act pr ohi bi t s empl oyer s f r om7 pr ovi di ng access t o t hei r pr emi ses, f r om gr ant i ng a8 uni on a l i st of empl oyees, or f r om decl ar i ng i t sel f9 neut r al as t o a uni on el ect i on.

10 MR. MESSENGER: Yes, wi t h caveat s. The -

11 wi t h t he f i r st t wo, i t coul d f al l i nt o except i ons i n12 ot her ci r cumst ances. For , agai n, dur i ng a col l ect i ve13 bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p, some of t he except i ons st ar t t o14 appl y t o t he i nf or mat i on and use of pr oper t y. And goi ng15 t owar ds t he communi cat i ons, i f an empl oyer uni l at er al l y16 sai d, I ' m not goi ng t o say anyt hi ng. I don' t have t he17 t i me or money t o f i ght t he uni on, i t can do so. But i f18 an empl oyer cont r act ual l y agr ees and gi ves t he uni on19 cont r ol over i t s speech, t hen yes, a t hi ng of val ue -

20 J USTI CE KENNEDY: Do you acknowl edge t hat 21 your - - t hat your answer t o J ust i ce Kagan i s - - i s22 cont r ar y to year s of set t l ed pr act i ces and23 underst andi ngs? 24 MR. MESSENGER: No, Your Honor , I don' t 25 bel i eve t hat i t i s. And i f t hi s i s goi ng back - -



40/69


1 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I n ot her wor ds, t hi s ki nd2 of an agr eement i s ver y rare?3 MR. MESSENGER: I t ' s not rar e now. I t ' s4 onl y become pr eval ent i n the 1990s t o go -

5 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: And i t has - - i t has been6 enf or ced under 301. So i t - - i t woul d be odd t o say7 t hat an agr eement t hat i s enf or ceabl e t hat cour t -

8 cour t s haven' t enf or ced agr eement s j ust l i ke t hi s under 9 301 ar e cr i mi nal under 302.

10 MR. MESSENGER: The exact opposi t e i s t r ue. 11 Sect i on 301 gi ves cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on t o enf or ce any12 agr eement bet ween a l abor organi zat i on and an empl oyer . 13 302 makes i t i l l egal f or an empl oyer t o agr ee t o del i ver 14 somethi ng to a uni on. 15 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: Have - - have cour t s16 enf or ced agr eement s j ust l i ke t hi s one under 301?17 MR. MESSENGER: Many t i mes. However , 30218 was not r ai sed i n t hose cases. So woul d t hey have19 enf or ced t he agr eement i f i t was al l eged t hat i t was -

20 vi ol at ed 302? That , of cour se, i s t he quest i on bef or e21 t hi s Cour t . 22 J USTI CE BREYER: The quest i on i s t he same, I 23 t hi nk. And t o go back, I t hought t he most cl ear 24 st atement of your vi ew was when you sai d t o J ust i ce25 Scal i a t hat i f we don' t accept your i nt er pr et at i on,



41/69


1 t her e' s a hol e i n t he st at ut e. 2 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. And t hi s -

3 J USTI CE BREYER: I n f act , I t hi nk you sai d a4 bi g hol e. 5 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. And t hi s woul d6 actual l y creat e a l ar ger hol e -

7 J USTI CE BREYER: 8 MR. MESSENGER: 9 enf or ceabl e -

10 J USTI CE BREYER: 11 MR. MESSENGER: 12 J USTI CE BREYER: 13 MR. MESSENGER: 14 J USTI CE BREYER:

Al l r i ght . Now -

- - because of anyt hi ng

I get t he poi nt . I ' msor r y. I ' m f ocusi ng on t he hol e.

Yes. Now, I t hought t he area

15 t hat you' r e cal l i ng a hol e i s an ar ea wher e t he Nat i onal 16 Labor Rel at i ons Act gi ves t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons17 Boar d al l ki nds of aut hor i t y to set r ul es and t o say18 what i s an appr opr i at e pr act i ce and not . Am I r i ght 19 about t hat ?20 MR. MESSENGER: To a degree, yes, but 30221 al ways cover s -

22 J USTI CE BREYER: Al l r i ght . I f t he answer 23 i s yes, and I ' m sur e t her e' s some qual i f i cat i on, but i f 24 t he hear t of t he answer i s yes, t hen i t ' s t he cont r ar y25 t hat cr eat es t he hol e, because i f we thr ow t hose thi ngs



42/69

42


1 whi ch ar e cent r al t o t he NLRA' s r egul at or y power i nt o2 t hi s par t i cul ar pr ovi si on, t he NLRA l oses t he power t o3 say when t hey' r e okay, when t hey' r e not okay, t o make a4 t housand qual i f i cat i ons. 5 Hence, t he NLRA' s r egul at or y pr ovi si ons and6 t hi s case ar e t he J eep on t he pedest al or t he bar ber i n7 t he st r eet . Even t hough I have t o t el l you, i n Bol ogna8 i n t he 18t h cent ur y, despi t e t he except i on of t he ei ght h9 cent ur y, i t di d not ment i on bar ber s speci f i cal l y i n t he

10 st at ut e. They had t o be r ead i n by t he cour t s. 11 ( Laught er . ) 12 MR. MESSENGER: The di f f erence, Your 13 Honor - - I can' t speak f or Bol ogna, but 302 i s meant t o14 gover n l abor r el at i ons -

15 J USTI CE BREYER: Yes. 16 MR. MESSENGER: - - i ncl udi ng or gani zi ng, 17 i ncl udi ng col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng. So anyt hi ng t hat t he18 NLRB - - what do you cal l i t ? - - has cover age over , 30219 al so cover s i t . So, f or exampl e -

20 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Messenger , suppose t hat 21 t her e was a - - a uni on and i t was st r i ki ng. And t he22 uni on goes t o the empl oyer and - - and t hey reach23 agr eement , and the agr eement i s t he uni on wi l l st op24 st r i ki ng i f t he empl oyer agr ees t o si t down and25 negot i at e wi t h t he uni on. So t hat ' s the pr omi se t hat



43/69


1 t he empl oyer makes to t he uni on. I ' m goi ng t o si t down2 and negot i at e wi t h you. And t hat ' s, obvi ousl y, a t hi ng3 of i mpor t ant val ue t o t he uni on. I s t hat al so4 pr ohi bi t ed?5 MR. MESSENGER: No, because i n t hat case, 6 t her e' s no t hi ng t hat ' s act ual l y be gi ven t o t he uni on, 7 especi al l y i f you' r e t al ki ng about negot i at i ng a8 col l ect i vel y bar gai ni ng agr eement , whi ch, of cour se, 9 t hose benef i t s go t o empl oyees.

10 J USTI CE KAGAN: Ther e' s no t hi ng t hat ' s11 gi ven t o t he uni on? I mean, I woul d t hi nk i f your 12 ar gument i s t hi ng of val ue i s anyt hi ng t hat ' s of val ue, 13 t her e' s not hi ng t hat ' s of gr eat er val ue t o t he uni on14 t han an empl oyer ' s agr eement t o negot i ate. 15 MR. MESSENGER: But t he quest i on becomes16 negot i at e what ? So i f t he quest i on i s l et ' s negot i at e17 over empl oyee wages, wages go t o empl oyees, t her e' s18 not hi ng t her e. On t he ot her hand, i f t hey say we wi l l 19 negot i at e over how much money we' l l pay you to st op20 st r i ki ng, wel l , t hen t hat ' s i l l egal under 302. 21 So i t j ust begs t he quest i on or r ai ses t he22 quest i on - - I ' m sor r y - - of what comes next af t er 23 t hat agr eement t o negot i ate. 24 J USTI CE KAGAN: Wel l , I guess - - I mean, 25 we' r e goi ng t o negot i at e about al l ki nds of t hi ngs,



44/69

44


1 t hi ngs - - t hi ngs t hat uni ons and empl oyer s negot i at e2 about , and t hat ' s of gr eat benef i t t o t he uni on. The3 uni on get s t o t ur n ar ound t o al l i t s empl oyees and say: 4 Look at t hi s, t he empl oyer i s goi ng t o si t down and t al k5 wi t h us. 6 MR. MESSENGER: I woul d say i n t hat case, 7 even i f i t di d have val ue, no t hi ng i s del i ver ed t o t he8 uni on. Because 302 -

9 J USTI CE SCALI A: Wel l , benef i t s - - benef i t s10 t o t he empl oyees al ways benef i t t he uni on. I mean, 11 t hat ' s - - you know, t hat ' s aut omat i c, i t seems to me. I 12 don' t under st and how you say that t hi s i s j ust a gi f t 13 st at ut e and t her e doesn' t have t o be any, anythi ng on14 t he ot her si de, no qui d pr o quo. You say i t ' s per f ect l y15 okay i f t he - - i f t he empl oyer al l ows t he uni on t o come16 on hi s pr emi ses t o r ecr ui t member s, but i t ' s not okay17 f or hi m t o agr ee, t o agr ee t o do so?18 MR. MESSENGER: No. 19 J USTI CE SCALI A: I don' t under st and what 20 t hat means. 21 MR. MESSENGER: No, Your Honor . I t woul d be22 i l l egal t o agr ee or t o do t hat . So i f an empl oyer 23 di dn' t agr ee t o al l ow t he uni on on i t s pr oper t y, i t j ust 24 di d, t hat woul d st i l l be t he del i ver y of t he use of25 pr oper t y. So t hat ' s not my posi t i on.



45/69

45


1 J USTI CE SCALI A: And what i f t he empl oyer 2 does not oppose t he uni on, he nei t her speaks agai nst i t 3 nor f or i t ? I s that gi vi ng somet hi ng of val ue t o t he4 uni on?5 MR. MESSENGER: Not i f he does so6 uni l at er al l y. But i f he agr ees t o do so, t hen t he7 cont r ol i s gi ven t o t he uni on ver y si mi l ar t o a8 noncompete. And t he agr eement - - t he agr eement . The9 exampl e I used i n t he br i ef I bel i eve i s a good one. I f

10 Coca- Col a deci des not t o r un adver t i si ng agai nst Pepsi , 11 i t hasn' t gi ven anyt hi ng t o Pepsi . I t doesn' t ent er 12 i nto a noncompet e agreement . 13 J USTI CE SCALI A: I t has no meani ng t o say14 you agr ee t o somethi ng when you' r e not get t i ng anyt hi ng15 i n r et ur n. You can pr omi se somet hi ng wi t hout get t i ng16 anythi ng i n r et ur n. But t o agr ee? I t hi nk t hat means, 17 you know, I won' t do i t i n exchange f or somet hi ng el se. 18 MR. MESSENGER: And t her e wi l l be19 consi der at i on. So t he hypot het i cal gi ven of t he20 empl oyer j ust doi ng i t i n exchange f or not hi ng wi l l 21 al most never happen, as I bel i eve UNI TE says i n i t s22 br i ef -

23 J USTI CE SCALI A: But i f i t di d happen, you' d24 say i t woul d be a vi ol at i on. 25 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. So i f t he - - f or



46/69


1 exampl e, i f t he empl oyer j ust sai d t o t he uni on, her e' s2 a t housand dol l ar s, j ust put i t on t he t abl e, t hat ' s a3 vi ol at i on. I t doesn' t have t o go any f ur t her t han t hat . 4 Or i f t he uni on sai d, Gi ve me a t housand dol l ar s, t hat ' s5 i l l egal . The empl oyer doesn' t have t o hand i t over . 6 But i t ' s ver y unusual t o have t hi s ki nd of7 organi zi ng agr eement wi t hout a qui d pr o quo. Most 8 empl oyers don' t hand over t hei r empl oyees t o the uni on9 wi t hout somet hi ng i n exchange, ei t her pr e- negot i at ed

10 concessi ons at empl oyee expense, such as an Adcock, or 11 an agr eement not t o st r i ke or a pol i t i cal campai gn such12 as here. 13 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: You woul d ar gue t hat t he14 t hr ee i t ems i n di sput e - - t he access t o pr oper t y, 15 et c. - - t hat t he consi der at i on i s t he agr eement t o go16 i nt o ar bi t rat i on, f i r st of al l , put t i ng asi de t he17 hundr ed t housand dol l ars. 18 MR. MESSENGER: The i nt erest ar bi t r at i on?19 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: The ar bi t r at i on of20 di sput es t hat was promi sed by t he empl oyer and t he uni on21 under t hi s agr eement . 22 MR. MESSENGER: I woul dn' t cal l t hat 23 consi der at i on. I bel i eve t he consi der at i on was, what 24 t he uni on gave t he empl oyer was, t he25 hundr ed- t housand- dol l ar pol i t i cal campai gn and t he



47/69

47


1 agr eement not t o st r i ke. 2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Not t o st r i ke. 3 MR. MESSENGER: Yes, not t o st r i ke. 4 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Messenger , woul d your 5 ar gument appl y t o t he f ol l owi ng? I ' m j ust goi ng t o gi ve6 you a f ew di f f er ent ki nds of pr omi ses. A pr omi se t o7 gi ve t he uni on i nf ormat i on about t he company and i t s8 f i nances?9 MR. MESSENGER: Dur i ng col l ect i ve

10 bar gai ni ng, no, because i t woul d f al l under t he f i nal 11 cl ause of Sect i on ( c) ( 2) . 12 J USTI CE KAGAN: 13 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng?14 MR. MESSENGER: 15 t he uni on, yes. 16 J USTI CE KAGAN:

But not i f not dur i ng

Then i f t hat had val ue t o

I ' m sur e i t does. 17 An agr eement gi vi ng t he uni on a rol e i n18 gr i evance pr ocedur es?19 MR. MESSENGER: No, because t he gr i evance20 pr ocedur es ul t i matel y go t o t he empl oyee. So a21 gr i evance over , f or exampl e, shoul d thi s empl oyee get 22 back pay doesn' t del i ver anythi ng t o t he uni on. 23 J USTI CE KAGAN: Coul d you expl ai n t hat 24 di st i nct i on t o me, ul t i mat el y go t o t he empl oyee? I 25 mean, I assume t hat ever ythi ng t hat t he uni on does, t he



48/69

48


1 uni on i s sayi ng, wel l , ul t i mat el y the benef i t s go t o t he2 empl oyee. 3 MR. MESSENGER: Wel l , but 302, i t s very4 st r uctur e sor t of di f f er ent i at es t he uni on f r om t he5 empl oyee, so t he thought of what ' s good f or t he uni on i s6 good f or t he empl oyee i s somewhat r ej ect ed i mpl i ci t l y i n7 302, t hat t her e' s a separ at i on t her e. The uni on i s8 supposed t o act as t hei r r epr esent at i ve -

9 J USTI CE KAGAN: But t he uni on, on t he ones10 t hat you say, wel l , t he neut r al i t y agr eement s, t he11 access, t hat ' s j ust t o t he uni on, t he uni on can t ur n12 ar ound and say: No, ul t i mat el y i t ' s t o t he empl oyee, 13 t hat we' r e goi ng t o r epr esent t he empl oyees wel l . So14 t he l i ne you' r e dr awi ng seems qui t e i nadmi ni st r abl e t o15 me. 16 MR. MESSENGER: I bel i eve I di dn' t perhaps17 expl ai n i t cor r ect l y. I t ' s not t hat i f t he uni on can18 say t hi s i s good f or empl oyees, t hat ' s excul pat or y. The19 quest i on i s who get s the t hi ng. I n ot her wor ds, 302 i s20 a ver y l i t er al i nt er pr et at i on, not mi ne, but j ust goi ng21 back t o t he t ext , 302 r equi r es t he -

22 J USTI CE KAGAN: Okay, so t he -

23 MR. MESSENGER: Payment or del i ver y - - I ' m24 sorry. 25 J USTI CE KAGAN: No, pl ease.



49/69


1 MR. MESSENGER: Payment or del i very. So i f2 t he thi ng i s del i ver ed t o t he empl oyee and not t o t he3 uni on i t sel f , i t ' s not cover ed. So, f or exampl e, t he4 or i gi nal l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, t hey sai d what about t he5 wages t o t he empl oyees and t he suppor t i ng Senat or 6 sai d -

7 J USTI CE KAGAN: Yes, but my hypot het i cal i s8 t he t hi ng, was t he uni on' s r ol e i n gr i evance pr ocedur es. 9 MR. MESSENGER: Gr i evance procedur es -

10 J USTI CE KAGAN: So t he uni on get s i t , r i ght ?11 MR. MESSENGER: No. Because what - - I don' t 12 bel i eve t hat has any val ue i nt r i nsi cal l y t o t he uni on. 13 A gr i evance pr ocedur e i s si mpl y a cont r act ual mechani sm14 t o do somet hi ng el se. So t he quest i on i s what ' s - - i n15 ot her wor ds, t ake ar bi t r at i on. I f you agr ee t o16 ar bi t r at e somet hi ng, what ar e t hey ar bi t r at i ng? I f17 you' r e ar bi t r at i ng over what t he uni on get s, t hen, yes, 18 t hat coul d be i l l egal . But i f you' r e ar bi t r at i ng over 19 what goes t o empl oyees, t he t hi ng i s del i ver ed t o t he20 empl oyees. 21 J USTI CE KAGAN: Wel l , I guess I ' l l t el l you22 t hat a uni on t hat can say that i t has a r ol e i n23 gr i evance pr ocedur es i s, t hat ' s an i mpor t ant t hi ng f or a24 uni on t o be abl e t o t el l i t s empl oyees. That ' s of r eal 25 val ue t o t he uni on t o have t hat .



50/69

50


1 MR. MESSENGER: But i s t he val ue comi ng f r om2 t he empl oyer ? Li ke, t here t he argument woul d be t he3 val ue i s bei ng gi ven i s t he goodwi l l of empl oyees 4 t owards t he uni on. 5 J USTI CE KAGAN: How about - - how about i f a6 company gi ves a uni on a r ol e i n company deci si on- maki ng, 7 any ki nd, hi r i ng, any ot her ki nd of company8 deci si on- maki ng? The company says, we want t he uni on t o9 par t i ci pat e i n t hi s.

10 MR. MESSENGER: I woul d say probabl y not , 11 because what i s ul t i mat el y t he t hi ng? I s i t - - i f t hey12 gave i t cont r ol per haps over , l i ke, you can now r un t he13 aut o shop and t ake t he pr of i t s f r om i t , t hen yes. 14 However , i f i t ' s mer el y, we' l l l i st en t o your i nput , 15 exact l y i s bei ng gi ven? Because I t hi nk i t ' s16 i mpor t ant - - Mul hal l i s not ar gui ng f or an expansi ve17 i nt er pr et at i on of 302. 18 The t hree t hi ngs t hat ar e act ual l y at i ssue19 her e ar e r at her di r ect t hi ngs gi ven di r ect l y t o t he20 uni on: Li st s of i nf or mat i on, use of pr oper t y. So i f21 you do move more t o t he f r i nges of t hi ngs t hat may22 cr eat e i ndi r ect benef i t s t o uni ons, t hat may cr eat e some23 pr obl ems and some di f f i cul t i es. But t he Cour t need not 24 r each t hose her e t o f i nd or gani zi ng assi st ance t o25 vi ol at e t he st at ut e.



51/69


1 J USTI CE KENNEDY: I t ' s har d t o t hi nk t hat 2 one r eal l y pays or l ends or del i ver s, whi ch i s ar e3 st at ut or y wor ds, neut r al i t y of speech. 4 MR. MESSENGER: I t woul d be cont r ol . That ' s5 what pl ed, i s you can del i ver cont r ol over your 6 communi cat i ons t o another . And t hat ' s done i n gag7 cl auses whi ch ar e common i n l i t i gat i on, of cour se; and8 al so i n noncompete agr eement s, whi ch are i nt angi bl e9 asset s f or t ax pur poses. So t hose can - - t hat cont r ol

10 can be del i ver ed t o anot her par t y or pai d i f i t i s done11 i n consi der at i on f or somet hi ng el se. 12 J USTI CE KAGAN: Mr . Messenger , t he Excel si or 13 r ul e, i f I under st and i t cor r ect l y, t he NLRB says t hat 14 an empl oyer absol ut el y has t o gi ve a l i st of15 empl oyees -

16 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. 17 J USTI CE KAGAN: - - t o t he uni on seven days18 af t er an el ect i on i s cal l ed; i s t hat cor r ect ?19 MR. MESSENGER: Not exact l y. The empl oyer 20 has t o gi ve a l i st t o t he NLRB, and t hen t he NLRB21 di str i but es i t t o al l part i es . 22 J USTI CE KAGAN: Okay, okay. But t he uni on23 get s i t seven days af t er ?24 MR. MESSENGER: Event ual l y, yes. 25 J USTI CE KAGAN: And t hat ' s by r equi r ement .



52/69

52


1 So you' r e suggest i ng t hat i f t he empl oyer gi ves i t si x2 days af t er , t hat ' s not onl y not r equi r ed, t hat ' s3 f or bi dden?4 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. 5 J USTI CE KAGAN: So i t goes wi t hi n a per i od6 of 24 hour s, somethi ng that no empl oyer can do7 vol unt ar i l y t o somet hi ng t hat has t o be done. 8 MR. MESSENGER: Yes, and t he r eason i s i t ' s9 not t he possessi on of t he l i st t hat ' s somehow wr ongf ul .

10 I t ' s t he f act t hat i t ' s gi ven by the empl oyer , whi ch11 cr eat es the danger : What wi l l t he uni on gi ve i n12 exchange. That ' s the danger t hat 302 exi st s to t ake13 car e of , not t hat i t ' s necessar i l y wr ongf ul per se f or a14 uni on t o have l i st s of i nf or mat i on or t he use of15 pr oper t y, but what wi l l i t do i n r et ur n. And uni ons16 have compr omi sed empl oyee i nt er est s i n exchange f or t hi s17 t ype of assi st ance. They cer t ai nl y have ext or t ed18 empl oyer s. And her e UNI TE i s wi l l i ng t o conduct a19 hundr ed- t housand- dol l ar pol i t i cal campai gn f or t hi s20 i nf or mat i on. 21 So, of cour se, i n t hat hypot het i cal t hey' d22 get i t t he next day anyway, so i t woul d be rat her 23 unusual f or i t t o happen. But i n a case l i ke t hi s wher e24 t he uni on can' t r equest an el ect i on, t hat l i st i s 25 ext r emel y val uabl e t o t hem. And as UNI TE' s conduct



53/69


1 shows, t hey val ue i t enough t o do somethi ng i n exchange2 f or i t . 3 J USTI CE GI NSBURG: I s i t - - we hear d f r om4 t he ot her si de that t hat hundr ed- t housand- dol l ar payment 5 f or t he bal l ot i ni t i at i ve was a benef i t bot h because i t 6 woul d mean that t here woul d be many mor e wor ker s7 empl oyed by t he casi no i f t hey wer e al l owed t o go i nt o8 t hi s new l i ne of busi ness. So t hat i t wasn' t payment t o9 t he empl oyer of somet hi ng t hat i s of benef i t excl usi vel y

10 t o t he empl oyer . I t was t o t he uni on' s benef i t t oo. 11 MR. MESSENGER: Yes. I mean, t hat ' s12 pr obabl y - - t hat may be t r ue. However , 302 doesn' t 13 pr ohi bi t , as Mr . - - opposi ng counsel sai d, pr ohi bi t a14 uni on f r om gi vi ng somet hi ng to an empl oyer . 15 Thank you, Mr . Chi ef J ust i ce. 16 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel . 17 Mr . McCr acken, you have f our mi nut es18 r emai ni ng. 19 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF RI CHARD G. McCRACKEN20 ON BEHALF OF THE PETI TI ONER21 MR. McCRACKEN: Thank you. On -

22 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: Mr . McCr acken -

23 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. 24 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: I f I under st ood t he25 ci r cui t bel ow, i t was suggest i ng, l i ke t he gover nment ,



54/69


1 t hat an exchange of agr eement s f or pur poses of peacef ul 2 r ecogni t i on, t er ms t hat wer e gi ven f or t hat pur pose wer e3 l egal , but t hat t hi ngs gi ven f or - - t hat wer e not sol el y4 f or r ecogni t i on, had val ue out si de of t hat , l i ke money, 5 woul d be wr ong. 6 That 100, 000 i s t r oubl i ng t o me because I 7 t hi nk what t he ci r cui t was sayi ng i s i f t he 100, 0008 bought t he peacef ul r ecogni t i on pr ovi si ons, t hen t hat ' s9 cor r upt , and t hat i s out si de t he exempt i ons t hat t he l aw

10 pr ovi des. That ' s how I r ead i t s deci si on. 11 Tel l me why I ' m wr ong about t hat and t el l me12 how I deal wi t h t hat ni ggl i ng pr obl em I have about t he13 $100, 000, because i t does f eel l i ke a br i be t o t he14 empl oyer . 15 MR. McCRACKEN: And t he - - r eadi ng t he16 El event h Ci r cui t ' s deci si on i s act ual l y somewhat 17 di f f i cul t , because t he - - i t appear s t hat t he cour t 18 suspected t hat t here must be somethi ng el se i n t he19 pi ct ur e that had not been di scl osed and t hat ' s why i t 20 or der ed t he di st r i ct cour t t o f i nd out why t he t wo21 par t i es had cooper at ed wi t h each ot her , despi t e t he f act 22 t hat no one had al l eged anythi ng el se i n t he pi ct ur e23 besi des what i s bef or e us al l now. 24 The - - so i t seemed t hat t he cour t was25 puzzl ed t hat an empl oyer woul d agr ee wi t h t he uni on t o



55/69

55


1 cooper at e i n t hi s f ashi on. The cooper at i on -

2 J USTI CE SOTOMAYOR: I don' t t hi nk i t - - i t 3 was puzzl ed by t he pr ovi si ons at i ssue. I t hi nk i t was4 puzzl ed by t he 100, 000. 5 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. And t he - - t he 100, 0006 was not a cash payment t o anyone, al t hough i t mi ght have7 been. I t mi ght have been a cont r i but i on t o a pol i t i cal 8 act i on commi t t ee t hat had been f ormed t o advocat e f or 9 t hi s i ni t i at i ve. But i nst ead, i t was act ual l y t he

10 uni on' s own exer ci se of i t s speech and pet i t i on r i ght s11 as i t campai gned f or t he passage of t he i ni t i at i ve t hat 12 woul d al l ow t he company t o get i nt o busi ness i n t he13 f i r st pl ace as a casi no. 14 So, i f t he vi ol at i on t ur ns on t he uni on' s15 exer ci se of i t s own Fi r st Amendment r i ght s, t hen t her e' s16 a mor e sever e pr obl em her e t han Sect i on 302, I bel i eve. 17 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Wel l , but t here was18 a pr omi se t o exer ci se t he Fi r st Amendment r i ght s i n a19 part i cul ar way up t o t he amount of $100, 000. 20 MR. McCRACKEN: Yes. 21 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: That - - t hat ' s a22 l i t t l e di f f er ent . 23 MR. McCRACKEN: I t ' s a l i t t l e di f f er ent , but 24 al so ver y si mi l ar t o t he pr omi ses t hat ar e act ual l y on25 t he f ace of t he memor andum i t sel f , because t he uni on



56/69


1 agr ees t o wai ve i t s Fi r st Amendment r i ght s t o engage i n2 pi cket i ng and boycot t act i vi t y, as wel l as t he empl oyer 3 wai vi ng some of i t s r i ght s wi t h r espect t o i t s f r eedom4 of speech. 5 So t hi s i s a case wher e t her e ar e mul t i pl e6 wai ver s of r i ght s, bot h speech r i ght s and pr oper t y7 r i ght s, goi ng back and f or t h bet ween t he two par t i es f or 8 a cent r al , compl et el y l egi t i mat e pur pose, and t hat i s, 9 t he empl oyer get t i ng i nt o busi ness and t he uni on get t i ng

10 t he oppor t uni t y t o or gani ze i t s empl oyees. That ' s al l 11 t her e i s i n t hi s pi ctur e, i s t he uni on, l i ke so many12 const r uct i on uni ons t hat we know, advocat i ng i n Congr ess 13 f or t he passage of l aws l i ke t he Keyst one Pi pel i ne Law. 14 Why di d t hey do t hat ? They do i t because15 t hey want t he j obs. They hope t hat i f t hey hel p t he16 i ndust r y devel op a pi pel i ne, t hat t hei r member s wi l l 17 wor k on t hose j obs. That i s a combi nat i on of i nt er est s18 f unnel ed t hr ough t he Fi r st Amendment ' s pr ot ect i on f or 19 mut ual ef f or t , as t he Cour t r ecogni zed i n Penni ngt on, 20 and, of cour se, t he Noer r - Penni ngt on Doct r i ne i s one of21 our most i mpor t ant const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i ons. 22 That ' s al l t hat happened i n t hi s case. So23 t her e' s not hi ng nef ar i ous about i t . 24 What - - t her e i s - - t her e ar e some ext r emel y25 damagi ng t hi ngs t hat t he Respondent s' ver y si mpl i st i c



57/69

57


1 ar gument wi l l - - woul d accompl i sh i f i t wer e adopt ed. 2 J ust i ce Kagan r ef er r ed t o t he - - t he gr i evance3 pr ocedur e. 4 Wel l , t her e' s al so ar bi t r at i on i n t hi s5 agr eement , as wel l as i n col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng6 agr eement s. But one sear ches i n vai n i n 302( c) f or any7 except i on f or ar bi t r at i on, even t hough t he Cour t has8 sai d over so many year s t hat i t i s t he most i mpor t ant 9 t hi ng under t he Labor Management Rel at i ons Act .

10 Thank you. 11 CHI EF J USTI CE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel . 12 Counsel . 13 The case i s submi t t ed. 14 ( Wher eupon, at 11: 03 a. m. , t he case i n t he15 above- ent i t l ed mat t er was submi t t ed. ) 16171819202122232425



58/69

OOffffiicciiaall -- SSuubbjjeecctt ttoo RReevviieeww58

A address 26:3 10:15 20:19 34:8 52:22 aside 46:16

$100,000 4:6,12 addresses 11:10 23:14 24:13 appeals 25:15 asking 11:16

6:8 7:4,24 11:18 25:12,17 26:17 APPEARAN... aspects 35:7

20:22 21:10 administer 30:8 27:2,9,12 28:8 1:14 asserts 8:5

28:19 54:13 administered 31:7,13,16 appears 54:17 assets 51:9

55:19 13:24 32:6 37:6,8,10 applicable 34:22 assistance 26:23a.m 1:13 3:2 administration 37:16,17 40:8 application 27:17 28:17

57:14 14:4 40:16 48:10 20:15 22:4 29:10 37:2

ability 29:21 admits 26:17 51:8 54:1 57:6 applies 36:8 38:2 50:24

able 49:24 adopted 57:1 agrees 39:18 apply 16:13 52:17

above-entitled advertising 6:8 42:24 45:6 19:22 30:3 assists 36:18

1:11 57:15 45:10 56:1 32:12 33:12 assume 6:2

absent 33:25 advocate 55:8 AL 1:6 34:18 36:5 47:25

absolutely 51:14 advocated 12:13 Alito 12:3,7,10 39:14 47:5 assumed 13:25

abstract 3:23 advocating 12:15 14:6,15 approach 29:21 14:5 18:7

4:15 56:12 14:24 15:8 appropriate Atkinson 13:12

accept 15:14 AEP 30:12 17:10,14 41:18 authority 41:1740:25 afresh 18:9 alleged 5:19 approved 32:20 authorized

accepted 13:13 age 13:20 40:19 54:22 32:20 30:25

17:25 18:2 ago 10:23 23:9 alleges 12:18 arbitrate 5:6 auto 50:13

access 7:13 8:20 agree 25:12 alleging 29:2 49:16 automatic 44:11

11:10,19 14:20 30:24 40:13 allow 44:23 arbitrating avoid 3:12,13

19:5 21:6 44:17,17,22,23 55:12 49:16,17,18 26:19

24:21 25:229:22 30:4,635:6 39:746:14 48:11

accomplish 57:1accurate 8:7acknowledge

39:20act 3:17 4:9 7:18

22:2,7,1025:20 26:16,1830:12 31:533:3,4,9,16,2434:10 35:1439:6 41:16

48:8 57:9action 13:4,21

14:1 17:2355:8

activity 19:2320:3 56:2

Adcock 46:10added 25:18

34:12 36:6

45:14,16 49:1554:25

agreed 30:17agreement 4:7

4:24 5:15 6:98:14,18 9:2,1511:3,7,11 12:112:1,24 22:923:1,4 24:1624:17,20 25:1126:19 27:6,1528:19,23 29:329:5,20 30:2231:23 37:12,1537:22 40:2,7

40:12,19 42:2342:23 43:8,1443:23 45:8,845:12 46:7,1146:15,21 47:147:17 57:5

agreements 3:118:6,11 9:22,249:24 10:6,11

allowed 14:831:22 53:7

allowing 23:5allows 30:5

44:15alternative 32:8amended 33:3

36:5Amendment

55:15,18 56:1Amendment's

56:18amicus 1:19 2:7

16:23amount 55:19

analogy 4:2answer 22:1434:19 39:2141:22,24

anti-union 24:7antitrust 19:22

19:24 20:4,833:7

anyway 33:11

arbitration 29:246:16,18,1949:15 57:4,7

area 15:25 20:9

41:14,15arguably 4:4argue 24:1,4

46:13argued 23:6arguing 32:19

50:16argument 1:12

2:2,5,9,12 3:43:7,21 7:1113:3 16:22

19:17 23:3,923:11,12 26:1130:20 31:234:16,25 35:1138:22 43:1247:5 50:253:19 57:1

article 8:9 9:1817:12

B

b 32:1back 8:11,15,16

34:16 37:2539:25 40:2347:22 48:2156:7

backed 24:12ballot 23:18

26:21 53:5ban 32:2 39:4barber 34:22

42:6barbers 42:9bargain 36:10

38:7,8bargaining 3:16

3:19 9:1712:20,24 29:2030:11,22 31:431:6,23 32:637:14,16 39:1342:17 43:8

AAllddeerrssoonn RReeppoorrttiinngg CCoommppaannyy


59/69


47:10,13 57:5 35:15,18 36:2 13:18,23 15:12 choice 24:15 56:17based 20:16 40:22 41:3,7 16:13 17:6,12 choosing 36:11 come 3:14 20:5BASF 30:9,9 41:10,12,14,22 17:16,18 18:6 Chriskey 8:10 26:3,6 44:15beautifully 42:15 19:20 23:9 circuit 4:14 comers 9:13

32:13 Breyer's

United States Supreme Court Case Union vs Muhall

Documents

Transcript of United States Supreme Court Case Union vs Muhall