## Facts

- Local 357 and other Teamsters locals and an employer association executed a three-year collective-bargaining agreement covering California motor-truck operators.
- The agreement established a union dispatching (hiring hall) system for “casual” employees, requiring dispatch on an industry seniority basis “irrespective of whether such employee is or is not a member of the Union.”
- Employers were required to call the union hall first for casual help; if notified help was unavailable, or dispatched employees did not timely appear, employers could hire from other sources.
- A union member (Lester Slater) obtained casual work directly from an employer without using the hiring hall; after a union complaint, he was discharged.
- Slater filed unfair labor practice charges against the union and employer, challenging the hiring-hall arrangement and his discharge.
- The NLRB treated the hiring hall provision as unlawful per se, found NLRA violations by the employer and union, and ordered broad reimbursement of union dues and fees paid by casual employees.
- The D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s order; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a union-operated hiring hall that, on its face, dispatches based on seniority without regard to union membership is unlawful per se under the NLRA absent proof of discriminatory operation.
2. Whether the NLRB may order blanket reimbursement of union dues and fees to all casual employees under NLRA § 10(c) as a remedy in this case.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the Board erred in treating the hiring hall arrangement as unlawful per se; such arrangements are unlawful only if they in fact produce discrimination prohibited by the Act.
- The Court held the NLRB lacked authority under § 10(c) to require broad reimbursement of union dues and fees paid to the union.
- The judgment enforcing the Board’s order was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- A hiring hall is not prohibited by the NLRA merely because it is union-operated; illegality depends on proof that the arrangement is applied to discriminate in a manner the Act forbids.
- Contract language requiring dispatch “irrespective” of union membership supports lawful administration, but does not foreclose challenges based on discriminatory operation.
- NLRA § 10(c) authorizes remedies that are remedial and tied to demonstrated unfair labor practices; it does not authorize punitive, generalized refunds of union dues and fees absent a specific make-whole connection.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected a categorical rule invalidating union hiring halls and required a showing of actual discriminatory operation to establish NLRA violations, while also limiting the NLRB’s remedial authority by disallowing blanket dues-and-fees reimbursement orders under § 10(c).


Local 357, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961)