## Facts

- CBS had collective bargaining relationships with two unions: a technicians’ union (Local 1212) and a union of stage employees.
- The unions disputed which group was entitled to perform certain television lighting work, especially “remote lighting” for telecasts away from the home studio.
- Neither union certifications nor collective bargaining agreements clearly allocated the disputed lighting work.
- CBS attempted to reduce conflict by dividing the work between the unions using practical criteria, but work stoppages continued when assignments favored one union over the other.
- CBS assigned lighting for a major telecast from the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to the stage employees.
- Local 1212 protested and then refused to operate the cameras, forcing cancellation of the program.
- CBS filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging Local 1212 violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(D) by coercive conduct aimed at forcing reassignment of work.

## Issues

1. Whether, after a § 10(k) proceeding triggered by a § 8(b)(4)(D) charge, the NLRB satisfies its duty to “hear and determine the dispute” by finding only that the charged union lacks a superior legal claim under existing orders, certifications, or contracts.
2. Whether a cease-and-desist order under § 8(b)(4)(D) is enforceable when the Board declines to make an affirmative allocation of the disputed work between competing unions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s refusal to enforce the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held the Board had not discharged its § 10(k) duty to “hear and determine the dispute” because it did not make an affirmative award of the disputed work between the competing employee groups.
- Because the § 10(k) determination was inadequate, the resulting § 8(b)(4)(D) cease-and-desist order was not entitled to judicial enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- In a jurisdictional dispute under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(D), the NLRB must conduct a § 10(k) proceeding that substantively determines the work-assignment dispute.
- “Determine the dispute” in § 10(k) requires an affirmative allocation of the disputed work between competing groups of employees, not merely a negative finding that one union lacks entitlement under existing orders, certifications, or agreements.
- A § 8(b)(4)(D) remedial order is not enforceable if it rests on a § 10(k) proceeding that fails to resolve the underlying work-assignment dispute.

## Conclusion

The Court required the NLRB, when addressing jurisdictional disputes under §§ 8(b)(4)(D) and 10(k), to make an affirmative work-assignment determination; without that substantive allocation, a cease-and-desist order premised on the dispute is not entitled to enforcement.


Nat’l Lab. Rels. Bd. v. Radio & Television Broad. Eng’rs Union, Loc. 1212, 364 U.S. 573 (1961)