Young v. United Steelworkers of A.

Full title: Young, Appellant, v. United Steelworkers of America

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 7, 1964

196 A.2d 313 (Pa. 1964)

196 A.2d 313

Opinion

November 12, 1963.

January 7, 1964.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Federal supremacy — Labor law — National Labor Relations Board — Exclusive jurisdiction — Unfair labor practice — Termination of employment.

In this case in which the plaintiff's basic complaint was the termination of the employer-employe relationship, for which he claimed back pay, it was Held that the matter fell arguably within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, and that the court below had properly declined to take jurisdiction.

Argued November 12, 1963. Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 54, Jan. T., 1964, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, March T., 1962, No. 1847, in case of Raymond Young v. United Steel-workers of America and Local Union 2323, United Steelworkers of America. Decree affirmed.

Equity.

Decree entered sustaining defendant's preliminary objections and dismissing complaint, opinion by SWENEY, P. J. Plaintiff appealed.

Joseph F. Mulcahy, Jr., for appellant.

Norman M. Berger, with him Gerber Galfand, for appellees.

OPINION PER CURIAM, January 7, 1964:

In view of our holding in the recent case of Wax v. Int. Mailers Union, 400 Pa. 173, it is clear that the court properly refused to take jurisdiction in the instant case. We there stated that "our jurisdiction can only be sustained where the complaint is grounded solely on injury to the plaintiff's member-union relationship, and which complaint does not seek damages for 'back pay' as a result of interference by the union with employment rights, which remedy the N.L.R.B. is specifically empowered by Section 10(c) to grant in unfair labor practices cases."

Although the plaintiff here complains of the Union's alleged misconduct, the real injury stressed, as resulting from the Union's misconduct, was the termination of the employer-employee relationship, for which he claims back pay. The matter thus falling arguably within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, the court below properly declined to take jurisdiction.

The facts in this case do not fall within the exceptions set forth in our most recent decision on the subject: Cosmark v. Struthers Wells Corp., 412 Pa. 211.

Affirmed.