Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation Board , 64 S. Ct. 95 ( 1943 )

Mr. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action by the petitioners, the Switchmen’s Union of North America and some of its members against the National Mediation Board, its members, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the New York Central Railroad Company and the Michigan Central Railroad Company. The individual plaintiffs are members and officials of the Switchmen’s Union and employees of the respondent carriers.

Petitioners were plaintiffs in the District Court. A certification of representatives for collective bargaining under § 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act (44 Stat. 577, 48 Stat. 1185) was made by the Board to the carriers.¹ This certification followed the invocation of the services of the Board to investigate a dispute among the yardmen as to their representative. The Brotherhood sought to be the representative for all the yardmen of the rail lines operated by the New York Central system. The Switchmen contended that yardmen of certain designated parts of the system should be permitted to vote for separate representatives instead of being compelled to take part in a system-wide election.

The Board designated all yardmen of the carriers as participants in the election. The election was held and the Brotherhood was chosen as the representative. Upon the certification of the result to the carriers, petitioners sought to have the determination by the Board of the participants and the certification of the representative cancelled. This suit for cancellation was brought in the District Court. That court upheld the decision of the Board to the effect that all yardmen in the service of a carrier should select a single representative for collective bargaining. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 135 F. 2d 785. The case is here on a petition for a writ of cer-tiorari which we granted because of the importance of the problems which are raised.

We do not reach the merits of the controversy. For we are of the opinion that the District Court did not have the power to review the action of the National Mediation Board in issuing the certificate.

Sec. 24 (8) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. §'41 (8), gives the federal district courts “original jurisdiction” of all “suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce.” We may assume that if any judicial review of the certificate of the Board could be had, the District Court would have jurisdiction by reason of that provision of the Judicial Code. See Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U. S. 201; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38; Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, 316 U. S. 350. But we do not think that that broad grant of general jurisdiction may be invoked in face of the special circumstances which obtain here.

If the absence of jurisdiction of the federal courts meant a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress had created, the inference would be strong that Congress intended the statutory provisions governing the general jurisdiction of those courts to control. That was the purport of the decisions of this Court in Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, and Virginian Ry. Co. v. System. Federation, 300 U. S. 515. In those cases it was apparent that but for the general jurisdiction of the federal courts there would be no remedy to enforce the statutory commands which Congress had written into the Railway Labor Act. The result would have been that the “right” of collective bargaining was unsupported by any legal sanction. That would have robbed the Act of its vitality and thwarted its purpose. Such considerations are not applicable here. The Act in § 2, Fourth writes into law the “right” of the “majority of any craft or class of employees” to “determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act.” That “right” is protected by § 2, Ninth which gives the Mediation Board the power to resolve controversies concerning it and as an incident thereto to determine what is the appropriate craft or class in which the election should be held. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 88 F. 2d 757; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 135 F. 2d 780. A review by the federal district courts of the Board’s determination is not necessary to preserve or protect that “right.” Congress for reasons of its own decided upon the method for the protection of the “right” which it created. It selected the precise machinery and fashioned the tool which it deemed suited to that end. Whether the imposition of judicial review on top of the Mediation Board’s administrative determination would strengthen that protection is a considerable question.² All constitutional questions aside, it is for Congress to determine how the rights which it creates shall be enforced. Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 576-577. In such a case the specification of one rémedy normally excludes another. See Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238; Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 U. S. 165, 174-175; United States v. Babcock, 250 U. S. 328, 331; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U. S. 381, 404.

Generalizations as to when judicial review of administrative action may or may not be obtained are of course hazardous. Where Congress has not expressly authorized judicial review, the type of problem involved and the history of the statute in question become highly relevant in determining whether judicial review may be nonetheless supplied. See United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226, 232-237. As is indicated at some length in General Committee of Adjustment v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., post, p. 323, the emergence of railway labor problems from the field of conciliation and mediation into that of legally enforcible rights has been quite recent. Until the 1926 Act the legal sanctions of the various acts had been few. The emphasis of the legislation had been on conciliation and mediation; the sanctions were publicity and public opinion. Since 1926 there has been an increasing number of legally enforcible commands incorporated into the Act. And Congress has utilized administrative machinery more freely in the settlement of disputes. But large areas of the field still remain in the realm of conciliation, mediation, and arbitration. On only a few phases of this controversial subject has Congress utilized administrative or judicial machinery and invoked the compulsions of the law. We need not recapitulate that history here. Nor need we reiterate what we have said in the Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. case beyond our conclusion that Congress intended to go no further in its use of the processes of adjudication and litigation than the express provisions of the Act indicate.

In that connection the history of § 2, Ninth is highly relevant. It was introduced into the Act in 1934 as a device to strengthen and make more effective the processes of collective bargaining. Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, supra, pp. 543-549. It was aimed not only at company unions which had long plagued labor relations (id., pp. 545-547) but also at numerous jurisdictional disputes between unions. Commissioner Eastman, draftsman of the 1934 amendments, explained the bill at the Congressional hearings. He stated that whether one organization or another was the proper representative of a particular group of employees was “one of the most controversial questions in connection with labor organization matters.” Hearings, Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, on H. R. 7650, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 40. He stated that it was very important “to provide a neutral tribunal which can make the decision and get the matter settled.” Id., p. 41. But the problem was deemed to be so “highly controversial” that it was thought that the prestige of the Mediation Board might be adversely affected by the rulings which it would have to make in these jurisdictional disputes. Id., p. 40. And see Hearings, Committee on Interstate Commerce, U. S. Senate, on S. 3266, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 134-135. Accordingly § 2, Ninth was drafted so as to give to the Mediation Board the power to “appoint a committee of three neutral persons who after hearing shall within ten days designate the employees who may participate in the election.” That was added so that the Board’s “own usefulness of settling disputes that might arise thereafter might not be impaired.” S. Rep. No. 1065, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3. Where Congress took such great pains to protect the Mediation Board in its handling of an explosive problem, we cannot help but believe that if Congress had desired to implicate the federal judiciary and to place on the federal courts the burden of having the final say on any aspect of the problem, it would have made its desire plain.

The fact that the certificate of the Mediation Board is conclusive is of course no ground for judicial review. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 277 U. S. 172, 182. Congress has long delegated to executive officers or executive agencies the determination of complicated questions of fact and of law. And where no judicial review was provided by Congress this Court has often refused to furnish one even where questions of law might be involved. See Louisiana v. McAdoo, 234 U. S. 627, 633; United States v. George S. Bush & Co., 310 U. S. 371; Work v. Rives, 267 U. S. 175; United States v. Babcock, supra. We need not determine the full reach of that rule. See Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106; Houston v. St. Louis Independent Packing Co., 249 U. S. 479. But its application here is most appropriate by reason of the pattern of this Act.

While the Mediation Board is given specified powers in the conduct of elections, there is no requirement as to hearings. And there is no express grant of subpoena power. The Mediation Board makes no “order.” And its only ultimate finding of fact is the certificate. Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, supra, p. 562. The function of the Board under § 2, Ninth is more the function of a referee. To this decision of the referee Congress has added a command enforcible by judicial decree. But the “command” is that “of the statute, not of the Board.” Id., p. 562.

The statutory mandate is that “the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified.” § 2, Ninth. But the scheme of § 2, Ninth is analogous to that which existed in Butte, A. & P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 290 U. S. 127. In that case Congress provided compensation to the owners of short-line railroads for losses attributable to federal control of the main systems during the first World War. The Interstate Commerce Commission was directed by § 204 of the Transportation Act of 1920 to ascertain the amount of deficits or losses and to “certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the several amounts payable” to the carriers. And the Secretary of the Treasury was “authorized and directed thereupon to draw warrants in favor of each such carrier upon the Treasury of the United States for the amount shown in such certificate as payable thereto.” Payments were made to the Butte company on such a certificate and the United States instituted suit to recover on the theory that the money had been disbursed on an erroneous interpretation of the statute. This Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brandéis, held that since authority to interpret the statute was “essential to the performance of the duty imposed upon the Commission” and since “Congress did not provide a method of review,” the Government, as well as the carrier, was “remediless whether the error be one of fact or of law.” Id., pp. 142-143. Cf. United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 287 U. S. 144.

In the present case the authority of the Mediation Board in election disputes to interpret the meaning of “craft” as used in the statute is no less clear and no less essential to the performance of its duty. The statutory command that the decision of the Board shall be obeyed is no less explicit. Under this Act Congress did not give the Board discretion to take or withhold action, to grant or deny relief. It gave it no enforcement functions. It was to find the fact and then cease. Congress prescribed the command. Like the command in the Butte By. case it contained no exception. Here as in that case the intent seems plain — the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law.

That conclusion is reinforced by the highly selective manner in which Congress has provided for judicial review of administrative orders or determinations under the Act. There is no general provision for such review. But Congress has expressly provided for it in two instances. Thus Congress gave the National Railroad Adjustment Board jurisdiction over disputes growing out of “grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” § 3, First (i). The various divisions of the Adjustment Board have authority to make awards. § 3, First (k)-(o). And suits based on those awards may be brought in the federal district courts. § 3, First (p). In such suits “the findings and order of the division of the Adjustment Board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” The other instance in the Act where Congress provided for judicial review is under § 9. The Act prescribes machinery for the voluntary arbitration of labor controversies. § 5, Third; § 7; § 8. It is provided in § 9 that an award of a board of arbitration may be impeached by an action instituted in a federal district court on the grounds specified in § 9, one of which is that “the award plainly does not conform to the substantive requirements laid down by this Act for such awards, or that the proceedings were not substantially in conformity with this Act.” § 9, Third (a). When Congress in § 3 and in § 9 provided for judicial review of two types of orders or award&and in § 2 of the same Act omitted any such provision as'respects a third type, it drew a plain line of distinction. And the inference is strong from the history of the Act that that distinction was not inadvertent. The language of the Act read in light of that history supports the view that Congress gave administrative action under § 2, Ninth a finality which it denied administrative action under the other sections of the Act.

Shields v. Utah Idaho Central R. Co., 305 U. S. 177, is not opposed to that view. That case involved a determination by the Interstate Commerce Commission under § 1, First of the Act that the lines of the carrier in question did not constitute an interurban electric railway. The result was that the railroad company was a “carrier” within the meaning of the Act and subject to its criminal penalties. The carrier brought a suit in equity against a United States Attorney to restrain criminal prosecutions under the Act. This Court allowed the action to be maintained even though the Railway Labor Act contained no provision for judicial review of such rulings. But the decision was placed on the traditional use of equity proceedings to enjoin criminal proceedings. 305 U. S. p. 183. Moreover, it was the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission which this Court held to be reviewable. Although the authority of the Commission derived from the Railway Labor Act, this Court quite properly related the issue not to railway labor disputes but to those transportation problems with which the Commission had long been engaged. And see Shannahan v. United States, 303 U. S. 596. The latter have quite a different tradition in federal law than those pertaining to carrier-employee relationships.

What is open when a court of equity is asked for its affirmative help by granting a decree for the enforcement of a certificate of the Mediation Board under § 2, Ninth raises questions not now before us. See Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation, supra, pp. 559-562.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

1 Sec. 2, Ninth provides: “If any dispute shall arise among a carrier’s employees as to who are the representatives of such employees designated and authorized in accordance with the requirements of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board, upon request of either party to the dispute, to investigate such dispute and to certify to both parties, in writing, within thirty days after the receipt of the invocation of its services, the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act. In such an investigation, the Mediation Board shall be authorized to take a secret ballot of the employees involved, or to utilize any other appropriate method of ascertaining the names of their duly designated and authorized representatives in such manner as shall insure the choice of representatives by the employees without interference, influence, or coercion exercised by the carrier. In the conduct of any election for the purposes herein indicated the Board shall designate who may participate in the election and establish the rules to govern the election, or may appoint a committee of three neutral persons who after hearing shall within ten days designate the employees who may participate in the election. The Board shall have access to and have power to make copies of the books and records of the carriers to obtain and utilize such information as may be deemed necessary by it to carry out the purposes and provisions of this paragraph."

2 “Even courts have been known to make rulings thought by counsel to be erroneous.” Crane v. Hahlo, 258 U. S. 142, 148.