Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953)

Topics:  Ford Motor Company

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
 
Case:   FORD MOTOR CO. V. HUFFMAN 

Case #: 345US330


NO. 193.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18-19, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 195 F.2D
170, REVERSED. 


1.  A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHEREBY AN EMPLOYER, IN
DETERMINING RELATIVE SENIORITY OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES, GIVES
THEM CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE, AS WELL AS THE CREDIT
FOR POST-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, IS VALID - ALTHOUGH IT WORKS TO THE
DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THOSE WHO WERE EMPLOYED
PRIOR TO THEIR MILITARY SERVICE.  PP. 331-336. 

2.  BY ACCEPTING SUCH A PROVISION IN A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT, A UNION DOES NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY AS A CERTIFIED
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED.  PP. 336-343. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. HUFFMAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 194, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, V. HUFFMAN
ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A CLASS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE TO INVALIDATE A SENIORITY
CLAUSE IN A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIS UNION AND HIS
EMPLOYER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  195 F.2D 170.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 814.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 343. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE CASES WE SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS WHEREBY AN EMPLOYER, IN DETERMINING RELATIVE SENIORITY OF
EMPLOYMENT AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES, GIVES THEM CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT
MILITARY SERVICE AS WELL AS THE CREDIT REQUIRED BY STATUTE FOR POST
EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE.  (FN1) 

THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BY RESPONDENT HUFFMAN, ACTING
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ABOUT 275 FELLOW EMPLOYEES OF
THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER IN CASE NO. 193 (HERE CALLED FORD). 
HIS COMPLAINT IS THAT HIS POSITION, AND THAT OF EACH MEMBER OF HIS
CLASS, HAS BEEN LOWERED ON THE SENIORITY ROSTER AT FORD'S LOUISVILLE
WORKS, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN FORD AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
IN CASE NO. 194 (HERE CALLED INTERNATIONAL).  HE CONTENDS THAT THOSE
PROVISIONS HAVE VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS, AND THOSE OF EACH MEMBER OF HIS
CLASS, UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS
AMENDED.  (FN2)  HE CONTENDS ALSO THAT INTERNATIONAL'S ACCEPTANCE OF
THOSE PROVISIONS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED. 
(FN3)  HE ASKS, ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE PROVISIONS BE DECLARED INVALID
INSOFAR AS THEY PREJUDICE THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS,
AND THAT APPROPRIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE GRANTED AGAINST FORD AND
INTERNATIONAL.  AFTER ANSWER, BOTH SIDES ASKED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
(FN4) 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION WITHOUT OPINION BUT SAID IN
ITS ORDER THAT IT WAS "OF THE OPINION THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT EXPRESSES AN HONEST DESIRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTERESTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND IS NOT A DEVICE OF HOSTILITY
TO VETERANS.  THE COURT FINDS THAT SAID COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
SETS UP A SENIORITY SYSTEM WHICH THE COURT DEEMS NOT TO BE ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY OR IN ANY RESPECT UNLAWFUL."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  195 F.2D 170.  FORD
AND INTERNATIONAL FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI SEEKING TO
REVIEW THE SAME DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE GRANTED BOTH
BECAUSE OF THE WIDESPREAD USE OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS COMPARABLE TO
THOSE BEFORE US, AND BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN
RELATION TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  344 U.S. 814. 

THE PLEADINGS STATE THAT HUFFMAN ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF FORD SEPTEMBER
23, 1943, WAS INDUCTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE NOVEMBER 18, 1944, WAS
DISCHARGED JULY 1, 1946, AND, WITHIN 30 DAYS, WAS REEMPLOYED BY FORD
WITH SENIORITY DATING FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 1943, AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE. 
(FN5)  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS ARE
VETERANS BUT, LIKE HIM, ALL HAVE SENIORITY COMPUTED FROM THEIR
RESPECTIVE DATES OF EMPLOYMENT BY FORD. 

THE PLEADINGS ALLEGE FURTHER THAT HUFFMAN AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS
CLASS ALL HAVE BEEN LAID OFF OR FURLOUGHED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
EMPLOYMENTS AT TIMES AND FOR PERIODS WHEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO
LAID OFF OR FURLOUGHED EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISIONS COMPLAINED OF IN THE
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THOSE PROVISIONS STATE, IN
SUBSTANCE, THAT AFTER JULY 30, 1946, IN DETERMINING THE ORDER OF
RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES, ALL VETERANS IN THE EMPLOY OF FORD "SHALL
RECEIVE SENIORITY CREDIT FOR THEIR PERIOD OF SERVICE, SUBSEQUENT TO
JUNE 21, 1941 IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES, UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR PROBATIONARY
PERIOD" OF SIX MONTHS.  (FN6) 

THE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS THAT WHEREAS HUFFMAN'S SENIORITY,
AND THAT OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS, IS COMPUTED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
DATES OF EMPLOYMENT BY FORD AND THEY HAVE BEEN CREDITED WITH THEIR
SUBSEQUENT MILITARY SERVICE, IF ANY, YET IN SOME INSTANCES THEY ARE NOW
SURPASSED IN SENIORITY BY EMPLOYEES WHO ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF FORD
AFTER THEY DID BUT WHO ARE CREDITED WITH CERTAIN MILITARY SERVICE WHICH
THEY RENDERED BEFORE THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY FORD.  (FN7) 

RESPONDENT CONTENDED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT
FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WENT BEYOND
THE CREDIT PRESCRIBED BY THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940.  THAT ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY.  195 F.2D 170, 173.  IT
HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED HERE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT STATUTE WHICH
PROHIBITS ALLOWING SUCH A CREDIT IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES AGREE TO
DO SO.  THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF RETURNING VETERANS ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN
REGULAR COURSE DURING THEIR ABSENCE IN MILITARY SERVICE, WHERE THE
CHANGES ARE NOT HOSTILE DEVICES DISCRIMINATING AGAINST VETERANS. 
AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMBELL, 337 U.S. 521; AND SEE TRAILMOBILE CO. V.
WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40; FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328
U.S. 275.  SEE ALSO, OAKLEY V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 338 U.S. 278., AS
TO A VETERAN'S SENIORITY STATUS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER HIS
REEMPLOYMENT. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY RESPONDENT WAS
SUSTAINED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS
OBJECTION WAS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF INTERNATIONAL, AS A CERTIFIED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, WAS LIMITED BY STATUTE AND WAS EXCEEDED WHEN
INTERNATIONAL AGREED TO THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US. 

THE AUTHORITY OF EVERY BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, IS STATED IN BROAD TERMS: 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION  ..  .  

     *    *         *         *         * 

"SEC. 9.  (A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A
UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  ..  .""  61 STAT. 140,
143, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 157, 159(A). 

IN THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING FACTORS, THE ABOVE PURPOSES, INCLUDING
"MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION" AND "OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT," ARE
BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER TERMS OF SENIORITY.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS PASSED IN 1935 AND AS AMENDED IN 1947, EXEMPLIFIES THE FAITH OF
CONGRESS IN FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES WHEN CONDUCTED BY FREELY AND FAIRLY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
APPROPRIATE UNITS OF EMPLOYEES.  THAT THE AUTHORITY OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES, HOWEVER, IS NOT ABSOLUTE IS RECOGNIZED IN STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 198-199, IN CONNECTION WITH
COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THEIR STATUTORY
OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT REQUIRES
THEM TO MAKE AN HONEST EFFORT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF THOSE
MEMBERS, WITHOUT HOSTILITY TO ANY.  ID., AT 198, 202-204; TUNSTALL V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210, 211; BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. HOWARD, 343 U.S. 768. 

ANY AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE DERIVES ITS PRINCIPAL STRENGTH FROM A
DELEGATION TO THE NEGOTIATORS OF A DISCRETION TO MAKE SUCH CONCESSIONS
AND ACCEPT SUCH ADVANTAGES AS, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS, THEY BELIEVE WILL BEST SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE
PARTIES REPRESENTED.  A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATORS IS TO WEIGH
THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERING PROPOSALS.  A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED, OFTEN IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION BUT IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT IT
BE SUCH.  THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED OFTEN ARE MEMBERS OF THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS THEM AT THE BARGAINING TABLE, BUT IT IS
NOT ESSENTIAL THAT THEY BE SUCH.  THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE,
WHOEVER IT MAY BE, IS RESPONSIBLE TO, AND OWES COMPLETE LOYALTY TO, THE
INTERESTS OF ALL WHOM IT REPRESENTS.  IN THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY,
INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTED, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE,
ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE LOUISVILLE WORKS, INCLUDING BOTH THE VETERANS
WITH, AND THOSE WITHOUT, PRIOR EMPLOYMENT BY FORD, AS WELL AS THE
EMPLOYEES HAVING NO MILITARY SERVICE.  INEVITABLY DIFFERENCES ARISE IN
THE MANNER AND DEGREE TO WHICH THE TERMS OF ANY NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
AFFECT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES.  THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH DIFFERENCES DOES NOT MAKE THEM INVALID.  THE COMPLETE
SATISFACTION OF ALL WHO ARE REPRESENTED IS HARDLY TO BE EXPECTED.  A
WIDE RANGE OF REASONABLENESS MUST BE ALLOWED A STATUTORY BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE IN SERVING THE UNIT IT REPRESENTS, SUBJECT ALWAYS TO
COMPLETE GOOD FAITH AND HONESTY OF PURPOSE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION. 

COMPROMISES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, WITH A VIEW TO LONG-RANGE
ADVANTAGES, ARE NATURAL INCIDENTS OF NEGOTIATION.  DIFFERENCES IN
WAGES, HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT REFLECT COUNTLESS VARIABLES. 
SENIORITY RULES GOVERNING PROMOTIONS, TRANSFERS, LAYOFFS AND SIMILAR
MATTERS MAY, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, REVOLVE AROUND LENGTH OF COMPETENT
SERVICE.  VARIATIONS ACCEPTABLE IN THE DISCRETION OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES, HOWEVER, MAY WELL INCLUDE DIFFERENCES BASED UPON SUCH
MATTERS AS THE UNIT WITHIN WHICH SENIORITY IS TO BE COMPUTED, THE
PRIVILEGES TO WHICH IT SHALL RELATE, THE NATURE OF THE WORK, THE TIME
AT WHICH IT IS DONE, THE FITNESS, ABILITY OR AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES,
THEIR FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES, INJURIES RECEIVED IN COURSE OF SERVICE,
AND TIME OR LABOR DEVOTED TO RELATED PUBLIC SERVICE, WHETHER CIVIL OR
MILITARY, VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY.  SEE, E.G., HARTLEY V. BROTHERHOOD
OF CLERKS, 283 MICH. 201, 277 N.W. 885; AND SEE ALSO WILLIAMSON &
HARRIS, TRENDS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1945), 100-103. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, GIVES A BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE NOT ONLY WIDE RESPONSIBILITY BUT AUTHORITY TO MEET THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE IS WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN, IN THE GENERAL INTEREST OF
THOSE IT REPRESENTS, IT AGREES TO ALLOW UNION CHAIRMEN CERTAIN
ADVANTAGES IN THE RETENTION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, EVEN TO THE PREJUDICE
OF VETERANS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO GREATER SENIORITY.  AERONAUTICAL
LODGE V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, AT 526-529. 

THE PUBLIC POLICY AND FAIRNESS INHERENT IN CREDITING EMPLOYEES WITH
TIME SPENT IN MILITARY SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS
SO CLEAR THAT CONGRESS, IN THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940, REQUIRED SOME CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR IT IN COMPUTING SENIORITY
BOTH IN GOVERNMENTAL AND IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA.
CONGRESS THERE PRESCRIBED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO LEFT THEIR PRIVATE
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT TO ENTER MILITARY SERVICE SHOULD RECEIVE SENIORITY
CREDIT FOR SUCH MILITARY SERVICE, PROVIDED THEIR PRIOR CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER BRIEF, WAS BONA FIDE AND NOT ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. 
THERE IS LITTLE THAT JUSTIFIES GIVING SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO A
VETERAN WITH BRIEF PRIOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT THAT DOES NOT EQUALLY
JUSTIFY GIVING IT TO A VETERAN WHO WAS INDUCTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE
BEFORE HAVING A CHANCE TO ENTER ANY CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, OR TO A
VETERAN WHO NEVER WORKED FOR THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER WHO HIRED HIM
AFTER HIS RETURN FROM MILITARY SERVICE.  THE RESPECTIVE VALUES OF ALL
SUCH VETERANS, AS EMPLOYEES, ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY AND INDUSTRIAL STABILITY, THERE IS MUCH
TO BE SAID, ESPECIALLY IN TIME OF WAR OR EMERGENCY, FOR ALLOWING CREDIT
FOR ALL MILITARY SERVICE.  ANY OTHER COURSE ADOPTS THE DOUBTFUL POLICY
OF FAVORING THOSE WHO STAY OUT OF MILITARY SERVICE OVER THOSE WHO ENTER
IT. 

THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS TOOK CONCRETE FORM IN THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 WHICH ADDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT CREDIT FOR
MILITARY SERVICE BE GIVEN BY EVERY CIVILIAN FEDERAL AGENCY, WHETHER THE
MILITARY SERVICE PRECEDED OR FOLLOWED CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT.  (FN8)
APPARENTLY RECOGNIZING THE COUNTLESS VARIATIONS IN CONDITIONS AFFECTING
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, CONGRESS, HOWEVER, DID NOT MAKE CREDIT FOR SUCH PRE
EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE COMPULSORY IN PRIVATE CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT. 
A LITTLE LATER, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE RETRAINING AND REEMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ASSEMBLED A
REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND PRINCIPLES TO SERVE AS GUIDES TO
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS AND OTHERS.  (FN9)
AMONG 15 PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED BY THAT COMMITTEE, AND "WHOLEHEARTEDLY"
ENDORSED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, IN 1946, WERE THE FOLLOWING:    "8.
ALL VETERANS HAVING REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES SHOULD
BE ACCORDED THESE STATUTORY RIGHTS AS A MINIMUM. 

     *         *         *         *         *    "13.  NEWLY HIRED
VETERANS WHO HAVE SERVED A PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND QUALIFIED FOR
EMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED SENIORITY CREDIT, AT LEAST FOR PURPOSES OF
JOB RETENTION, EQUAL TO TIME SPENT IN THE ARMED SERVICES PLUS TIME
SPENT IN RECUPERATION FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES OR DISABILITIES
EITHER THROUGH HOSPITALIZATION OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING."  (FN10) 

THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US REFLECT SUCH A POLICY.  (FN11)  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DEFINE HERE THE LIMITS TO WHICH A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE MAY GO IN ACCEPTING PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE THE LONG-RANGE
SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THOSE IT REPRESENTS.  NOTHING IN THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO LIMITS THE VISION AND
ACTION OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT MUST DISREGARD PUBLIC
POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.  NOR DOES ANYTHING IN THAT ACT COMPEL A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO LIMIT SENIORITY CLAUSES SOLELY TO THE
RELATIVE LENGTHS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES. 
AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, AT 526, AND 528-529, N. 5.  FOR
EXAMPLES OF NEGOTIATED PROVISIONS PROTECTING VETERANS FROM LOSS OF
SENIORITY UPON THEIR RETURN TO PRIVATE CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, RECOGNIZED
BY THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD AS COMING WITHIN THE PROPER SCOPE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, IN 1945, SEE, IN RE AMERICAN CAN CO., 27 WAR
LAB.  REP.  634, 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  764, AND IN RE FIRESTONE TIRE &
RUBBER CO., 24 WAR LAB.  REP.  322, 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  483. SEE ALSO,
BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS
(1941), 369 ET SEQ. 

THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US ARE WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS OF RELEVANCY. 
THEY EXTENDED BUT SLIGHTLY, DURING A PERIOD OF WAR AND EMERGENCY, THE
ACCEPTANCE OF CREDITS FOR MILITARY SERVICE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
COMPARABLE CREDIT ALREADY WAS REQUIRED, BY STATUTE, IN FAVOR OF ALL WHO
HAD BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY FORD BEFORE ENTERING MILITARY SERVICE. 
THESE PROVISIONS CONFORM TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND ROUND OUT A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT WHICH,
UNLESS SO ROUNDED OUT, PRODUCES DISCRIMINATIONS OF ITS OWN.  A FAILURE
TO ADOPT THESE PROVISIONS MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN MORE FRICTION AMONG
EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY INTERNATIONAL THAN DID THEIR ADOPTION. 

THE SEVERAL BRIEFS OF AMICI CURIAE, FILED HERE BY CONSENT OF ALL
PARTIES, DEMONSTRATE THE WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE AND RELEVANCE OF THE
TYPE OF PROVISIONS BEFORE US. 

WE HOLD THAT INTERNATIONAL, AS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE, HAD AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THESE PROVISIONS.  ACCORDINGLY,
WE FIND NO GROUND SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE
PROVISIONS BEFORE US OR TO SUSTAIN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST EITHER
PETITIONER.  IN ACCORD:  HAYNES V. UNITED CHEMICAL WORKERS, 190 TENN.
165, 228 S.W.2D 101. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE IS REVERSED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  WHERE THE CONTEXT PERMITS, "MILITARY SERVICE" IN THIS OPINION
INCLUDES SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES. 

FN2  54 STAT. 890, 56 STAT. 724, 58 STAT. 798, 60 STAT. 341, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308. 

FN3  49 STAT. 452, 61 STAT. 140, 65 STAT. 601, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SECS. 157-159. 

FN4  IN NO. 194, INTERNATIONAL ALSO QUESTIONS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  INTERNATIONAL RECOGNIZES THAT ONE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS
WHETHER IT ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHEN IT AGREED TO THE
ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE IN COMPUTATIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT SENIORITY.  IT THEN ARGUES THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
160(A), VESTS THE INITIAL JURISDICTION OVER SUCH AN ISSUE EXCLUSIVELY
IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THIS QUESTION WAS NOT ARGUED IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS NOR MENTIONED IN ITS OPINION AND, IN VIEW OF OUR
POSITION ON THE MERITS, IT IS NOT DISCUSSED HERE.  OUR DECISION
INTERPRETS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE TO HAVE SUCH BREADTH THAT IT REMOVES ALL GROUND FOR A
SUBSTANTIAL CHARGE THAT INTERNATIONAL, BY EXCEEDING ITS AUTHORITY,
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  AS TO A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE
QUESTION CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SEE
TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210; STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 204-207. 

FN5  "SEC.  8  ..  .  

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM SUCH
TRAINING AND SERVICE, HAS LEFT OR LEAVES A POSITION, OTHER THAN A
TEMPORARY POSITION, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY EMPLOYER AND WHO (1) RECEIVES
SUCH CERTIFICATE (OF SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING
AND SERVICE), (2) IS STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SUCH
POSITION, AND (3) MAKES APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS
AFTER HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE  ..  .  

     *         *         * *         * 

"(B)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, SUCH
EMPLOYER SHALL RESTORE SUCH PERSON TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO; ..
."   54 STAT. 890, 58 STAT. 798, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308(B)(B). 

FN6  ARTICLE VIII OF A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORD AND
INTERNATIONAL, DATED JULY 30, 1946, CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: 

"SECTION 13 -  ..  .  

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  ANY VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY ANY PERSON
OR COMPANY AT THE TIME OF HIS ENTRY INTO THE SERVICE OF THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES OR THE MERCHANT MARINE AND WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES AND SERVED WITH THE ALLIES AND WHO HAS BEEN HONORABLY DISCHARGED
FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE AND WHO IS HIRED BY THE COMPANY AFTER HE
IS RELIEVED FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR
AFTER COMPLETION OF SERVICE IN THE MERCHANT MARINE SHALL, UPON HAVING
BEEN EMPLOYED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS AND NOT BEFORE, RECEIVE SENIORITY
CREDIT FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 21, 1941,
PROVIDED: 

"(1)  SUCH VETERAN MUST APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS
FROM THE TIME HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING OR SERVICE IN THE LAND
OR NAVAL FORCES OR THE TIME OF HIS COMPLETION OF SUCH SERVICE IN THE
MERCHANT MARINE, AND MUST OBTAIN SUCH EMPLOYMENT WITHIN TWELVE (12)
MONTHS FROM THE TIME HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE IN
THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR THE TIME OF HIS COMPLETION OF SUCH SERVICE
IN THE MERCHANT MARINE. 

"(2)  SUCH VETERAN SHALL NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED HIS RIGHT IN
ANY PLANT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COMPANY. 

"(3)  A VETERAN SO EMPLOYED SHALL SUBMIT HIS SERVICE DISCHARGE PAPERS
TO THE COMPANY AT THE END OF AFORESAID PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF
EMPLOYMENT AND THE COMPANY SHALL PLACE THEREON IN PERMANENT FORM A
STATEMENT SHOWING THAT THE VETERAN HAS EXERCISED THIS RIGHT, SUCH
STATEMENT TO BE SIGNED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION,
AND A COPY THEREOF PLACED IN THE EMPLOYEE'S RECORD AND A COPY FURNISHED
TO THE UNION. 

"(D)  IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT, REGARDLESS OF ANY OF
THE FOREGOING, ALL VETERANS IN THE (EMPLOY) OF THE COMPANY AT THE TIME
THE CONTRACT IS THUS AMENDED SHALL RECEIVE SENIORITY CREDIT FOR THEIR
PERIOD OF SERVICE, SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 21, 1941 IN THE LAND OR NAVAL
FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES, UPON
COMPLETION OF THEIR PROBATIONARY PERIOD." 

THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE CONTINUED IN EFFECT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL FORM, IN AN AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 21, 1947.  AN AGREEMENT OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1949, PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 12  .. . 


     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  ANY EMPLOYEE WHO, PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
AGREEMENT, HAS RECEIVED THE SENIORITY CREDIT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE
VIII, SECTION 13(C) OR (D) OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE
UNION DATED AUGUST 21, 1947, OR THE COMPARABLE PROVISION IN THE
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE UNION DATED JULY
30, 1946, SHALL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SUCH SENIORITY CREDIT." 

FN7  ON HUFFMAN'S RETURN TO FORD IN JULY, 1946, HIS EMPLOYMENT
SENIORITY, INCLUDING HIS MILITARY SERVICE, DATED FROM SEPTEMBER 23,
1943.  IT TOTALED ABOUT 33 MONTHS, INCLUDING ABOUT 14 MONTHS OF PRE
SERVICE COMPANY EMPLOYMENT AND 19 OF POST-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE. 
AN EXAMPLE OF A VETERAN WHO, DUE TO THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE US, OUTRANKS
HUFFMAN IN EMPLOYMENT SENIORITY IS ONE WHO ENTERED MILITARY SERVICE
JULY 1, 1943, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EMPLOYMENT, SERVED HONORABLY UNTIL
DISCHARGED MARCH 1, 1945, AND, THEREAFTER, HAS BEEN EMPLOYED
CONTINUOUSLY BY FORD, INCLUDING SIX MONTHS OF SATISFACTORY PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYMENT.  HIS SENIORITY DATES FROM JULY 1, 1943.  BY JULY 1, 1946,
IT TOTALED 36 MONTHS, INCLUDING 20 MONTHS OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY
SERVICE, AND 16 OF POST-SERVICE COMPANY EMPLOYMENT.  HOWEVER, EXCEPT
FOR THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, HUFFMAN WOULD THEN HAVE
OUTRANKED SUCH A VETERAN BY ABOUT 17 MONTHS, ALTHOUGH HUFFMAN'S
MILITARY SERVICE TOTALED ONE MONTH LESS, HIS EMPLOYMENT BY FORD TWO
MONTHS LESS AND HIS COMBINED MILITARY SERVICE AND COMPANY EMPLOYMENT
THREE MONTHS LESS THAN THAT OF SUCH A VETERAN. 

FN8  "SEC.  12.  IN ANY REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL IN ANY CIVILIAN
SERVICE OF ANY FEDERAL AGENCY, COMPETING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE RELEASED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL GIVE
DUE EFFECT TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT, MILITARY PREFERENCE, LENGTH OF
SERVICE, AND EFFICIENCY RATINGS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE LENGTH OF TIME
SPENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF
EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE CREDITED IN COMPUTING LENGTH OF TOTAL
SERVICE: ..  .""  58 STAT. 390, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 861. 

FN9  THIS "COMMITTEE OF NINE" CONSISTED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, RAILWAY
LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN LEGION, DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS. 

FN10  REEMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, OCTOBER, 1947,
STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PRINCIPLES DATED OCTOBER 7, 1946, APP. D, PP.
46-48; AND SEE BULLETIN OF RETRAINING AND REEMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCTOBER 10, 1946, P. 5; HARBISON,
SENIORITY PROBLEMS DURING DEMOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION, INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (1944) 12-14. 

FN11  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS - SENIORITY, BULL.  NO. 908
11, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
(1949), QUOTES MANY SENIORITY CLAUSES AS EXAMPLES OF THOSE THEN IN USE
AND INCLUDING MANY FACTORS OTHER THAN LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT.  AMONG
THOSE QUOTED IS THE FOLLOWING: 

"61.  VETERAN NOT PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED GIVEN SENIORITY CREDIT FOR TIME
SPENT IN ARMED FORCES. 

"ANY VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II WHO HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, OTHER THAN
DISHONORABLY, FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HIS ACCEPTANCE IN THE ARMED FORCES WAS NOT
PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED BY (NAME OF COMPANY) AND WHO IS EMPLOYED BY (NAME
OF COMPANY) WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS AFTER HIS DISCHARGE, PROVIDED IT
IS HIS FIRST PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AFTER HIS DISCHARGE, SHALL TAKE HIS
PLACE ON THE SENIORITY LIST AFTER COMPLETING THE SIXTY (60) DAY TRIAL
PERIOD.  HIS SENIORITY SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM THE DAY OF HIS ACCEPTANCE
INTO THE ARMED FORCES.  HOWEVER, NO VETERAN COVERED BY THIS SECTION
SHALL HAVE SENIORITY PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, 1941."  P. 13.