## Facts

- A C.I.O.-affiliated longshore union petitioned the NLRB under NLRA § 9(c) to investigate and certify the proper bargaining representative for Pacific Coast longshore workers.
- The NLRB conducted an investigation and hearings in consolidated representation proceedings in which A.F. of L.-affiliated unions participated as parties.
- The NLRB determined that longshore workers employed at Pacific Coast ports by members of five employer associations constituted an appropriate bargaining unit under § 9(b).
- The NLRB certified the C.I.O.-affiliated union as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees in the certified unit.
- The A.F. of L. unions alleged the certification improperly combined longshore employees across ports into a single unit and deprived some employees of a meaningful opportunity to select their preferred representative.
- The A.F. of L. sought judicial review of the certification itself, rather than review of an unfair labor practice order.

## Issues

1. Whether an NLRB certification of a bargaining representative under NLRA § 9(c) is an “order” reviewable by a court of appeals under NLRA § 10(f).
2. Whether withholding direct appellate review of such certifications violates due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- A § 9(c) certification is not a reviewable “final order” within the meaning of § 10(f).
- The NLRA provides for judicial consideration of representation determinations only incidentally, when reviewing a Board order entered in an unfair labor practice proceeding under § 10.
- Due process was not violated by Congress’s choice to withhold a grant of jurisdiction for direct review of certifications.
- The Court did not decide whether an independent equitable suit in district court could ever be used to challenge a certification.

## Legal Principles

- “Final order” review under NLRA § 10(f) is limited to Board orders issued in unfair labor practice proceedings under § 10.
- NLRB representation certifications under § 9(c) are not directly reviewable in the courts of appeals.
- Representation questions may be reviewed only indirectly when they arise as part of appellate review of a § 10 unfair labor practice order (e.g., an order requiring bargaining with the certified representative).
- The Due Process Clause is not infringed by Congress withholding jurisdiction the federal courts did not previously possess.

## Conclusion

The Court held that NLRA § 10(f) does not authorize direct appellate review of NLRB § 9(c) bargaining-representative certifications; such representation determinations can be examined only incidentally in judicial review of a § 10 unfair labor practice order, and the absence of direct review does not violate due process.


Am. Fed’n of Labor v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 308 U.S. 401 (1940)