Prince Edward County Schools, Virginia, 1977, undated - 1 of 11

    Supreme (tart nf %  lUtiti'ii States
October Term, 1952

IN' TH E

No. 371

GAYNOR NEWS 00., INC.,

vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE

T httkgood M arshall,
J ack Greenberg,

Counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Supreme P rinting Co.. I nc.. 41 M urray Street, N. Y., BArclay 7-0349



IN  THE,

Itaprem? Court of thz luttri Bu Ub
October Term, 1952 

No. 371

--------- ------------- o-----------------------

Gay nor N ews Co., I nc.,

vs.

National L abor. R elations B oard. 

-----------------------o---------------------

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice and the 
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court 
of the United States:

The N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme 
Court of the United States makes a motion for leave to 
file a brief as amicus curiae in the case of Gaynor News 
Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 371 in 
this Court.

1. Consent to file such brief has been requested of the 
parties. The National Labor Relations Board granted con­
sent. Gaynor News Co., Inc. refused consent. Letters of 
the parties granting and refusing consent are filed herewith 
in the office of the Clerk.

2. Movant is an organization engaged in combatting 
racial discrimination against Negroes. Although it does



2

not appear that racial discrimination is involved in this 
case, certain legal principles may be determined here and 
were determined in the court below, and before the National 
Labor Relations Board, which immediately affect the rights 
of Negroes and other minorities in their quest for equal 
employment opportunity.

Petitioner’s position is that no violation of § 8 (a)(3) 
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, exists 
where the employer favors union workers in pay and other 
privileges over non-union workers, where the union is a 
closed union, because in such a situation, non-members 
cannot be “ encouraged” by the discrimination. The Court 
below rejected this contention.

In many situations in which a labor union is the collec­
tive bargaining agent, Negroes and other minority groups 
are excluded from union membership solely because of 
race, religion, or national origin. Where Negroes or mem­
bers of other minorities are barred from union membership, 
under petitioner’s legal theory, the practice of withholding- 
benefits from non-union members is not an unfair labor 
practice of § 8(a) (3) of the Act, because the differential 
treatment cannot “ encourage” their membership. If this 
theory prevails, minority group members barred from the 
union, and denied benefits given union members, will be 
deprived of the right to file an unfair labor practice charge 
under § 8(a) (3)before the National Labor Relations Board, 
which is especially skilled in investigating such charges 
and enforcing the Act. A decision in this case, therefore, 
will vitally affect the struggle of large segments of our 
population to secure job equality and will be of national 
importance.

3. Movant has not seen the briefs of the parties in this 
Court and it is of the opinion that these have not yet been 
submitted. However, it does not believe that facts bearing 
upon the status of Negro and other minority group workers



3

will be adequately presented. Movant does not believe that 
the effect of the practices involved in this case upon minority 
group workers in encouraging them to secure membership 
in labor unions, will be adequately presented. Movant sub­
mits that these considerations are relevant to the public 
policy of the United States as it bears upon this case.

4. Movant does not believe that the law concerning the 
effect of national public policy upon the construction of the 
ambiguous statutory language of § 8(a) (3) will be ade­
quately presented; for example: the public policy of the 
United States against racial discrimination and the public 
policy of the United States relating to the full and efficient 
utilization of available manpower; nor that the policy of 
the statute (for example: insofar as it seeks to protect 
non-union members from practices inimical to the general 
welfare) will be adequately dealt with in terms of the prob­
lems of minority group members posed by this case.

Movant does not intend to file a brief covering matters 
adequately dealt with by the parties.

5. Movant submits that the above considerations are 
relevant to the issues at the bar and to the particular hold­
ing which may emanate from this Court.

Wherefore movant moves for leave to file a brief herein 
as amicus curiae.

Respectfully submitted,

T htjrgood Marshall,
J ack Greenberg,

Counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.