40 JACKSON, J., dissenting. job for one year without diminution of its incidents. See Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. 275, 286, in which this Court said, "What it [Congress] undertook to do was to give the veteran protection within the framework of the seniority system plus a guarantee against demotion or termination of the employment relationship without cause for a year." 328 U. S. at 288. That case interpreted the provisions against discharge as broad enough to prohibit also any reduction in status, pay, or seniority, during the year. But we did not hold that seniority rights ended with the year. Seniority rights are rights which, by their nature, endure as long as the employment does, and become more and more valuable in protecting that employment and enhancing its benefits. Ordinarily, one of their most important functions is to give a measure of security in the job. To have seniority rights. for a year may not be an impossibility, but it is almost a contradiction in terms. The job guaranteed against discharge for a year, then, is the job defined in § 8 (b) (B). But the right to discharge after the year is not unconditional where the employee is the beneficiary of a seniority plan. Of course, where employees have no seniority rights, the guarantee of one year's employment is their only right. But if a seniority system does exist, the Congress gave the employee "protection within the framework of the seniority system plus a guarantee against demotion or termination of the employment relationship without cause for a year." (Emphasis added.) Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U. S. at 288. It is to be noted that the seniority rights of Whirls were bargained away from him by a union which, under the National Labor Relations Act, was entitled to bargain as his representative. The Act makes the majority union. "the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit" for bargaining. 49 Stat. 453, § 9 (a), 29 U. S. C. 755552.0-48- -9 JACKSON, J., dissenting. 331 U. S. § 159 (a). We have held that this not only precludes the individual from being represented by others but also prevents him from bargaining for himself. J. I. Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 321 U. S. 332. While the individual is thus placed wholly in the power of the union, it does not follow that union powers have no limit. Courts from time immemorial have held that those who undertake to act for others are held to good faith and fair dealing and may not favor themselves at the cost of those they have assumed to represent. The National Labor Relations Act, in authorizing union organizations "for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," 49 Stat. 452, § 7, 29 U. S. C. § 157, indicates no purpose to excuse unions from these wholesome principles of trusteeship. We have held under a similar Act that the courts may intervene to prevent a majority union from negotiating a contract in favor of itself against a colored minority. Speaking for all but two members of the Court, Chief Justice Stone, after recognizing that the representatives may make "contracts which may have unfavorable effects on some of the members of the craft represented” in such matters as seniority, based on relevant differences of conditions, said: "Without attempting to mark the allowable limits of differences in the terms of contracts based on differences of conditions to which they apply, it is enough for present purposes to say that the statutory power to represent a craft and to make contracts as to wages, hours and working conditions does not include the authority to make among members of the craft discriminations not based on such relevant differences." Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 323 U. S. 192, 203. That opinion also declared that "It is a principle of general application that the exercise of a granted power to act in behalf of others involves the assumption toward them of a duty to exercise the power in their interest and behalf, and 40 JACKSON, J., dissenting. that such a grant of power will not be deemed to dispense with all duty toward those for whom it is exercised unless so expressed." 323 U. S. at 202. And in Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U. S. 210, we held that where an individual is without available administrative remedies, the courts must grant him protection. I do not think that Whirls' seniority rights after one year are made immutable or immune from collective bargaining. But the statute restored these rights to him as a veteran. They stand until they are lawfully modified. The record indicates that they have never been terminated or modified by good faith collective bargaining in the interests of the craft. It raises the suspicion that they were simply misappropriated to the benefit of the majority group which was under a duty to represent his interests as well as its own. The courts cannot tolerate the expulsion of a member of a union, depriving him of his right to earn a living merely because he invokes the process of the courts to protect his rights-even if he does so mistakenly. The Labor Relations Act makes it an unfair labor practice by an employer "To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony" in proceedings under it. 49 Stat. 453, § 8, 29 U. S. C. § 158. Neither may a union use its own power over its members to by-pass the courts. Cf. Dorchy v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 306. This action is equitable in character and equity traditionally adapts its remedies to the facts as developed by trial rather than to the form of pleadings. There could be no objection if the Court would remand the case for development of a more complete record. But I could not agree that it should be done with the suggestion that Whirls was not treated with discrimination because all in the Highland group were treated alike. If the Trailmobile Company had absorbed the wholly-owned Highland Company before Whirls returned and used the consolidation as an excuse to deny Whirls reemployment rights, this Court would hardly have approved so transparent a scheme. The union has no more right to rely on the consolidation to justify deprivation of seniority rights. INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC. ET SCHEELE, RECORDER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SADDLE RIVER, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF No. 83. Argued December 16, 1946.-Decided April 14, 1947. 1. A New Jersey municipal ordinance which forbids carrying on the business of storing goods for hire without payment of an annual license tax does not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution when applied (in the circumstances of this case) to a warehouse in which coal shipped from another state is stored within the municipality under a "transit" privilege, pending a decision by the owner whether to ship it to another state or to another point in the same state-even though most of the coal actually is shipped to other states. Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U. S. 1. Pp. 79-85. 2. The fact that the ordinance applies only to commercial storage facilities, and that there are no other commercial storage facilities in the municipality subject to the tax, does not render the ordinance violative of the due process or equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 86. 3. The decision of the highest court of a State that a local tax is valid under the law of the State is binding upon this Court. Pp. 86-87. 4. The tax can not be held unconstitutional as excessive, where the amount of it is not shown to be unrelated to the value of the privilege conferred. P. 87. 5. The power of the State to impose the tax here in question can not be defeated by private contractual arrangements such as those here involved. P. 87. 70 Opinion of the Court. 6. The tax can not be deemed prohibitive in view of the fact that it was imposed in lieu of other taxes of substantially the same amount which had been paid in previous years. Pp. 87-88. 7. So far as the ordinance provides for the punishment of individuals who work in unlicensed storage facilities, it violates no provision of the Federal Constitution. P. 88. 8. One who has made no attempt to secure the license required by the ordinance, is without standing to attack the constitutionality of a provision which allegedly gives to the municipality an uncontrolled discretion to revoke licenses which may be issued. P. 88. 9. The claim that the provision of the ordinance for cumulative penalties violates the Fourteenth Amendment is without substance, since the provision has not been applied in this case so as to impose cumulative penalties, and since the provision is expressly made separable if invalid. Pp. 88-89. 134 N. J. L. 133, 45 A. 2d 703, affirmed. From convictions of violating a municipal ordinance providing for the licensing of storage warehouses, the appellants, a corporation and an individual, appealed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the convictions. 132 N. J. L. 390, 40 A. 2d 796. The Court of Errors and Appeals reversed, sustaining the convictions. 134 N. J. L. 133, 45 A. 2d 703. Affirmed, p. 89. Duane E. Minard argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Clement K. Corbin, Willis T. Pierson and Edward A. Markley. Harry Lane and Ralph W. Chandless argued the cause, and Mr. Lane filed a brief, for appellees. MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court. An ordinance of Saddle River Township, New Jersey, forbids carrying on the business of storing goods for hire |