text: MUNIZ V. HOFFMAN, 422 U. S. 454 - Volume 422 - 1975 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
  US Supreme Court Center > Volume 422 > MUNIZ V. HOFFMAN, 422 U. S. 454 (1975) > Full Text
  MUNIZ V. HOFFMAN, 422 U. S. 454 (1975)
  After their request for a jury trial was denied, petitioners, a labor union officer and the union, were adjudged guilty of criminal contempt for violating temporary injunctions issued by the District Court pursuant to § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) against picketing of an employer pending the National Labor Relations Board's final disposition of the employer's unfair labor practice charge against such picketing. The District Court suspended sentencing of the officer and placed him on probation, but imposed a $10,000 fine on the union. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' claims that they had a statutory right to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692, which provides for jury trial in contempt cases arising under any federal law governing the issuance of injunctions "in any case" growing out of a labor dispute, and that they also had a right to a jury trial under the Constitution (the latter question being limited in this Court to whether the union had such a constitutional right).
  1. Petitioners are not entitled to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692. Pp. 422 U. S. 458-474.
  (a) It is clear from § 10(l) of the NLRA, as added by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and related sections, particularly § 10(h) (which provides that the courts' jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief or to enforce or set aside an NLRB unfair practice order shall not be limited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act), and from the legislative history of such sections, that Congress not only intended to exempt injunctions authorized by the NLRA and the LMRA from the Norris-LaGuardia Act's limitations, including original § 11 of the latter Act (now repealed) requiring jury trials in contempt actions arising out of that Act, but also intended that civil and criminal contempt proceedings enforcing those injunctions were not to afford contemnors the right to a jury trial. By providing for labor Act injunctions outside the Norris-LaGuardia Act's framework, Congress necessarily contemplated that there would be no right to a jury trial in such contempt proceedings. Pp. 422 U. S. 458-467.
  (b) Absent an express provision or any indication in the Reviser's Note to 18 U.S.C. § 3692 that a substantive change in the law was contemplated, no intention on Congress' part to change its original intention that there be no jury trials in contempt proceedings arising out of NLRA injunctions is shown by the fact that § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia.Act was repealed and replaced by § 3692 as part of the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code. Just as § 3692 may not be read apart from other relevant provisions of the labor law, that section likewise may not be read isolated from its legislative history and the revision process from which it emerged, all of which place definite limitations on this Court's latitude in construing it. Pp. 422 U. S. 467-474.
  2. Nor does petitioner union have a right to a jury trial under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment. Despite 18 U.S.C. § 1(3), which defines petty offenses as those crimes "the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months or a fine of not more than $500, or both," a contempt need not be considered a serious crime under all circumstances where the punishment is a fine of more than $500, unaccompanied by imprisonment. Here, where it appears that petitioner union collects dues from some 13,000 persons, the $10,000 fine imposed was not of such magnitude that the union was deprived of whatever right to a jury trial it might have under the Sixth Amendment. Pp. 422 U. S. 475-477.
  WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 422 U. S. 478. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 422 U. S. 481.
  The issues in this case are whether a labor union or an individual, when charged with criminal contempt for violating an injunction issued pursuant to § 10(l) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as added, 61 Stat. 149, and as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 10(l), has a right to a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3692, and whether the union has a right to a jury trial under the Constitution when charged with such a violation and a fine of as much as $10,000 is to be imposed.
  Early in 1970, Local 21 of the San Francisco Typographical Union commenced picketing a publishing plant of a daily newspaper in San Rafael, Cal. Shortly thereafter, the newspaper filed an unfair labor practice charge against this union activity, and the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, in response to that filing, petitioned the District Court pursuant to § 10(l) for a temporary injunction against those activities pending final disposition of the charge by the Board. The District Court, after a hearing, granted the requested relief and, more than two months later, granted a second petition for a temporary injunction filed by the Regional Director in response to other union activities related to
  the original dispute. On June 24, 1970, Local 21 and certain of its officials were found to be in civil contempt of the latter injunction. After the entry of this contempt order, the tempo of illegal activities in violation of both injunctions increased, with other locals, including Local 70, participating. Various unions and their officers, including petitioners, were subsequently ordered to show cause why they should not be held in civil and criminal contempt of the injunctions. After proceedings in the criminal contempt case had been severed from the civil contempt proceedings, petitioners demanded a jury trial in the criminal case; this request was denied and petitioners were adjudged guilty of criminal contempt after appropriate proceedings. The District Court suspended the sentencing of petitioner Muniz and placed him on probation for one year; the court imposed a fine on petitioner Local 70 which, for purposes of this case, was $10,000. [Footnote 1] On appeal of that judgment to the Court of Appeals, petitioners argued, inter alia, that they had a statutory right to a jury trial of any disputed issues of fact, relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3692; [Footnote 2] petitioners also argued that they had a right to a jury trial under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected these and other claims
  The petitioners' claim to jury trial under § 3692 is simply stated: that section provides for jury trial in contempt cases arising under any federal law governing the issuance of injunctions in any case growing out of a labor dispute; here, the injunction issued under § 10(l) arose out of a labor dispute in the most classic sense, and hence contempt proceedings were subject to § 3692's requirement for jury trial. Were we to consider only the language of § 3692, we might be hard pressed to disagree. But it is not unusual that exceptions to the applicability of a statute's otherwise all-inclusive language are not contained in the enactment itself, but are found in another statute dealing with particular situations to which the first statute might otherwise apply. [Footnote 3] Tidewater Oil
  The crucial issue is whether, in enacting the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, Congress not only intended to exempt the injunctions they authorized from Norris-LaGuardia's limitations, but also intended that civil and criminal contempt proceedings enforcing those injunctions were not to afford contemnors the right to a jury trial. Surely, if § 10(l) of Taft-Hartley had expressly provided that contempt proceedings arising from the injunctions which the section authorized would not be subject to jury trial requirements, it would be as difficult to argue that § 3692 nevertheless requires a jury trial as it would be to insist that Norris-LaGuardia bars the issuance of any injunctions in the first place. Section 10(l), of course, does not so provide; we think it reasonably clear from that and related sections and from their legislative history that this result is precisely what Congress intended.
  29 U.S.C. §§ 101-115. In 1947, in passing the Taft-Hartley Act as part of the Labor Management Relations Act, Congress provided for unfair labor practice proceedings against unions; and § 10(j) gave jurisdiction to the courts to issue injunctions in unfair labor practice proceedings, whether against unions or management, pending final disposition by the Board. Section 10(l) made special provision for interim injunctions "notwithstanding any other provision of law" in particular kinds of unfair labor practice proceedings against unions. Section 10(h) was retained in its original form.
  No party in this case suggests that the injunctions authorized by Congress in 1935 and 1947 were subject to the jurisdictional and procedural limitations of Norris-LaGuardia. Neither can it be seriously argued that, at the time of enactment of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts, civil or criminal contempt charges arising from violations of injunctions authorized by those statutes were to be tried to a jury. The historic rule at the time was that, absent contrary provision by rule or statute, jury trial was not required in the case of either civil or criminal contempt. See Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 356 U. S. 183, 356 U. S. 189 (1958). Section 11 of Norris-LaGuardia, 29 U.S.C. § 111 (1946 ed.), [Footnote 4] required jury trials in contempt actions arising out of labor disputes. But § 11 was among those sections which § 10(h) expressly provided would not limit the power of federal courts to
  enforce Board orders. Moreover, § 11 was limited, by its own terms and by judicial decision, to cases "arising under" the Norris-LaGuardia Act. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 298 (1947). Injunctions issued pursuant to either the Wagner Act or Taft-Hartley Act were not issued "under," but in spite of, Norris-LaGuardia; [Footnote 5] and contempt actions charging violations of those injunctions were not "cases arising under" Norris-LaGuardia. Section 11 of Norris-LaGuardia was thus, on its face, inapplicable to injunctions authorized by the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts; petitioners do not contend otherwise. They say:
  It would be difficult to contend otherwise. It seems beyond doubt that, since 1935, it had been understood that the injunctions and enforcement orders referred to in § 10(h) were not subject to the jury requirements of § 11 of Norris-LaGuardia. When Congress subjected labor unions to unfair labor practice proceedings in 1947, and in §§ 10(j) and 10(l) provided for interim injunctive relief from the courts pending Board decision in unfair labor practice cases, it was equally plain that § 11, by its own terms, would not apply to contempt cases arising out of these injunctions. By providing for labor
  That this was the congressional understanding is revealed by the legislative history of the Labor Management Relations Act. [Footnote 6] The House Managers' statement in explanation of the House Conference Report on Taft-Hartley stated:
  H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 57 (1947) (emphasis added). [Footnote 7]
  93 Cong.Rec. 4835 (1947). This statement was made in the context of Senator Ball's explanation of his proposed amendment to § 10(l) as reported out of committee. That section provided generally that the Board would be required, under certain circumstances, to seek injunctive relief in the federal
  "[W]hen the regional attorney of the NLRB seeks an injunction [pursuant to § 10(l) as reported] the Norris-LaGuardia Act is completely suspended. . . . We do not go quite that far in our amendment. We simply provide that the Norris-LaGuardia Act shall not apply, with certain exceptions. We leave in effect the provisions of sections 11 and 12. Those are the sections which give an individual charged with contempt of court the right to a jury trial."
  It is argued, however, that whatever the intention of Congress might have been with respect to jury trial in contempt actions arising out of Taft-Hartley injunctions, all this was changed when § 11 was repealed and replaced by 18 U.S.C. § 3692 as part of the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, in the course of which some sections formerly in Title 18 were revised and some related provisions in other titles were recodified in Title 18. The new § 3692, it is insisted, required jury trials for contempt charges arising out of any injunctive order issued under the Labor Management Relations Act if a labor dispute of any kind was involved. Thenceforward, it is claimed, contempt proceedings for violations by unions or employers of enforcement orders issued by courts of appeals or of injunctions issued under § 10(j) or § 10(l) must provide the alleged contemnor a jury trial.
  No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1947). We cannot accept the proposition that Congress, without expressly so providing, intended in § 3692 to change the rules for enforcing injunctions which the Labor Management Relations Act authorized the Labor Board, an agency of the United States, to seek in a United States court. Cf. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 330 U. S. 269-276. [Footnote 8] Just as § 3692 may not be read apart from other relevant provisions of the labor law, that section likewise may not be read isolated from its legislative history and the revision process from which it emerged, all of which place definite limitations on the latitude we have in construing it. The revision of the Criminal Code was, as petitioners suggest, a massive undertaking, but,
  H.R.Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1947). Revisions in the law were carefully explained [Footnote 9] in a series of Reviser's Notes printed in the House Report. Id. at A1 et seq. But the Reviser's Note to § 3692 indicates no change of substance in the law:
  Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 143 U. S. 459 (1892). Whatever may be said with regard to the application of this rule in other
  contexts, this Court has stated unequivocally that the principle embedded in the rule "has particular application in the construction of labor legislation. . . ." National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U. S. 612, 386 U. S. 619 (1967). Moreover, we are construing a statute of Congress which, like its predecessor, created an exception to the historic rule that there was no right to a jury trial in contempt proceedings. To read a substantial change in accepted practice into a revision of the Criminal Code without any support in the legislative history of that revision is insupportable. As this Court said in United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729, 110 U. S. 740 (1884):
  The general rule announced in Ryder was applied by this Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957). In that case, the question was whether venue in patent infringement actions was to be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a discrete provision dealing with venue in patent infringement actions, or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), a general provision dealing with venue in actions brought against corporations. Both of these provisions underwent some change in wording in the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code. [Footnote 10] The respondents in that
  case, arguing in favor of the applicability of the general venue provision, § 1391(c), took the position that the plain language of § 1391(c) was "clear and unambiguous, and that its terms include all actions. . . ." 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 228. This Court, stating that the respondents' argument "merely points up the question, and does nothing to answer it," ibid., determined that the general provision, § 1391(c), had to be read in a fashion consistent with the more particular provision, § 1400(b). The respondents contended, however, that the predecessor of § 1400(b), which this Court had held to govern venue irrespective of a general revenue provision, Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561 (1942), had undergone a substantive change during the revision of the Judicial Code in 1948 which effectively reversed the result dictated by Stonite.
  relevant to this case. "[N]o changes of law or policy," the Court said, "are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed." 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 227. Furthermore, a change in the language of a statute itself was not enough to establish an intent to effect a substantive change, for "every change made in the text is explained in detail in the Revisers' Notes," id. at 353 U. S. 226, and the Notes failed to express any substantive change. The Court relied on the Senate and House Reports on the 1948 revision to support this position, id. at 353 U. S. 226 nn. 6 and 7; the language quoted by the Court from the House Report is virtually identical to that which appears in the House Report of the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, see n 9, supra. In view of the express disavowals in the House and Senate Reports on the revisions of both the Criminal Code, see supra at 422 U. S. 468-469, and the Judicial Code, see n 10, supra, it would seem difficult, at best, to argue that a change in the substantive law could nevertheless be effected by a change in the language of a statute without any indication in the Reviser's Note of that change. It is not tenable to argue that the Reviser's Note to § 3692, although it explained in detail what words were deleted from and added to what had been § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, simply did not bother to explain at all, much less in detail, that an admittedly substantial right was being conferred on potential contemnors that had been rejected in the defeat of the Ball amendment the previous year and that, historically, contemnors had never enjoyed. [Footnote 11]
  409 U.S. at 409 U. S. 162, quoting Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U.S. at 353 U. S. 228. After going to the committee reports, the Court went to the Reviser's Notes and, in the Note to § 1292(a)(1), found no affirmative indication of a substantive change. On this basis, the Court refused to give § 1292(a)(1) as revised the "plausible" construction urged by respondents there.
  In this case, involving the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code, the House and Senate Reports caution repeatedly against reading substantive changes into the revision, and the Reviser's Note to § 3692 gives absolutely no indication that a substantive change in the law was contemplated. In these circumstances, our cases and the canon of statutory construction which Congress expected would be applied to the revisions of both the Criminal and Judicial Codes require us to conclude, along with all the lower federal courts having considered this question since 1948, save one, that § 3692 does not provide for trial by jury in contempt proceedings brought to enforce an injunction issued at the behest of the Board in a labor dispute arising under the Labor Management Relations Act. [Footnote 12]
  dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE STEWART, post at 422 U. S. 482, that dissent seems to imply that § 3692, after all, does not reach all cases of contempt in labor dispute injunctions. That dissent appears to say that § 3692 provides the right to jury trials only in cases involving criminal, as opposed to civil, contempt. This is so, it is suggested, because that section guarantees the right to "the accused," the inference being that one charged with civil contempt is not one properly denominated as an "accused." Post at 422 U. S. 487-488, n. 7. But the phrase "the accused" was taken verbatim from § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 72, 29 U.S.C. § 111 (1946 ed.), and the legislative history of § 11 leaves little room to doubt that, when Congress enacted § 11, it intended that section to be applicable to both criminal and civil contempt proceedings. That history establishes that § 11 was a compromise between the Senate version of the bill, which provided for a jury trial in all contempt cases, and the House version of the bill, which provided for jury trials in all criminal contempt cases arising under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The compromise, as explained to the House, gave the right to a jury trial in all contempts, civil or criminal, in cases arising under the Act. 75 Cong.Rec. 6336-6337 (1932). In the Senate, Senator Norris himself explained the compromise as follows:
  In arguing that § 3692 may not reach civil contempt cases, MR. JUSTICE STEWART also relies on implications which he finds in § 10(l) of the LMRA that § 3692, despite its language, has no application in those cases. As is clear from this opinion, infra at 422 U. S. 463-467, we too rely on § 10(l), as well as other provisions, in suggesting that certain contempt cases are not reached by § 3692.
  There is also a suggestion in the dissent of MR. JUSTICE STEWART that one charged with contempt of an injunction issued during a national emergency, 29 U.S.C. §§ 176-180, would not have the right to a jury trial notwithstanding § 3692. Apparently this is so because 29 U.S.C. § 178(b), § 208 of the Taft-Hartley Act, "provided simply and broadly that all the provisions of that [Norris-LaGuardia] Act are inapplicable." Post at 422 U. S. 488. But the language Congress used in § 178(b), "the provisions of sections 101 to 115 of this title, shall not be applicable," is remarkably similar to the language used in the Conference Report. of the Taft-Hartley Act to convey the congressional understanding of § 10(h) of the Wagner Act which it was reenacting in Taft-Hartley: "making inapplicable the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in proceedings before the courts. . . ." H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 57 (1947). See n 6, infra.
  MR. JUSTICE STEWART's position with respect to the applicability of § 3692 in proceedings brought in the Court of Appeals to enforce Board orders directed against employers is even less clear, but it would seem to be the inescapable conclusion under the dissent's analysis that, at least in criminal contempts of such orders, the courts of appeals would be required to empanel juries, a result that would certainly represent a novel procedure, see United States v. Barnett, 376 U. S. 681, 376 U. S. 690-691, and n. 7 (1964).
  The position of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting, post at 422 U. S. 478-479, that injunctions issued pursuant to the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts are or would have been "arising under" the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and therefore subject to § 11 prior to 1948, is contrary to the understanding of the Congresses that passed the Wagner Act, n 6, infra, and the Taft-Hartley Act, infra at 422 U. S. 464-467, and of every court to have considered this question, see cases cited n 12, infra.
  The dissents suggest that the word "jurisdiction" as used in both § 10(h) and § 10(l) is to be read in the technical sense, and that the reference to all the provisions of Norris-LaGuardia in § 10(h) was merely "an additional means of identifying" the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Post at 422 U. S. 486. Yet the language quoted in the text from the House Managers' statement supports only the position that Congress, in reenacting § 10(h) in 1947, understood that section as "making inapplicable the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act," not "making inapplicable the jurisdictional provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act" as the dissents would have it. Support for the position that § 10(h) was understood by Congress in 1947 to make inapplicable all the provisions of Norris-LaGuardia comes not only from the House Managers' statement, but also from a memorandum introduced into the Congressional Record a decade later by Representative Celler, who concluded that
  Petitioners' contention that § 3692 was Congress' response to the Court's decision in United States v. Mine Workers, supra, is particularly insupportable in light of the fact that the Reviser's Note, as set forth infra at 422 U. S. 469, was taken verbatim from the prior Reviser's Note to § 3692 that was reported to the House on February 15, 1945, more than two years prior to this Court's decision in Mine Workers and more than three years prior to the 1948 revision of the Criminal Code. The bill reported to the House in 1945, H.R. 2200, was adopted by the House on July 16, 1946, again prior to the decision in United Mine Workers and prior to February 5, 1947, when the House Committee on Education and Labor began hearings on labor legislation which eventually led to the introduction of the Taft-Hartley bill in the House on April 10, 1947. The identical version of the Criminal Code passed the House for the final time on May 12, 1947, almost two months prior to the House's acceptance of the conference version of Taft-Hartley.
  The Court's analysis in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957), is particularly relevant to our inquiry in this case because of the parallel courses followed by the revisions of the Criminal and Judicial Codes. The revision to the Criminal Code was prepared by a staff of experts drawn from various sources and, after this staff completed its work on that revision, the same staff turned its attention to the revision of the Judicial Code. The only hearings held in the House on either of the revisions were held jointly by a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings on Revision of Titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code, before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). The House Reports issued subsequent to those hearings parallel one another in many respects, including almost identical statements respecting the purpose and scope of the two revisions. Compare H.R.Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1947), quoted in the text, supra at 422 U. S. 469, with H.R.Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1947):
  The Senate Reports on the two revisions likewise expressed the intention of preserving the original meaning of the statutes undergoing revision. Compare S.Rep. No. 1620, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1948), quoted in the text, supra at 422 U. S. 469, with S.Rep. No. 1559, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1948) ("great care has been exercised to make no changes in the existing law which would not meet with substantially unanimous approval"). Testimony in the House joint hearings confirms that the methods and intent of the revisers themselves were the same with respect to both revisions. Hearings, supra at 6.
  Madden v. Grain Elevator, Flour & Feed Mill Workers, 334 F.2d 1014 (CA7 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 967 (1965) (§ 10(l) proceeding); Schauffler v. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Assn., 189 F.Supp. 737 (ED Pa.1960), rev'd on other grounds, 292 F.2d 182 (CA3 1961) (§ 10(l) proceeding). See United States v. Robinson, 449 F.2d 925 (CA9 1971) (suit for injunctive relief brought by the United States against employees of a federal agency); Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 127 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 380 F.2d 570, cert. denied, 389 U. S. 327 (1967) (proceeding under Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.); NLRB v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, 193 F.2d 979 (CA5 1952) (proceeding brought for violation of § 7 of the Wagner Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, now 29 U.S.C. § 157); In re Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 386 F.2d 309 (CA5 1967) (proceedings for violation of § 7 of the Wagner Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, now 29 U.S.C. § 157); Mitchell v. Barbee Lumber Co., 35 F.R.D. 544 (SD Miss.1964) (proceedings brought for violation of order issued for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.); In re Piccinini, 35 F.R.D. 548 (WD Pa.1964) (proceedings brought for violation of consent decree involving Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.). The only decision to the contrary, In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 502 F.2d 113 (CA1 1974), was decided without express reference to any of the pertinent legislative history of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts; the panel of the Court of Appeals was itself divided over the correct result, see id. at 121-122 (Campbell, J., dissenting).
  In enacting this language in 1948, Congress reaffirmed the purpose originally expressed in § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 72, 29 U.S.C. § 111 (1946 ed.). That Act was intended to shield the organized labor movement from the intervention of a federal judiciary perceived by some as hostile to labor. The Act severely constrained the power of a federal court to issue an injunction against any person "participating or interested in a labor dispute." Section 11 provided for trial by jury in "all cases arising under this Act in which a person shall be charged with contempt." In the context of the case now before us, I view this section as affording, at the very least, a jury trial in any criminal contempt proceeding involving an alleged violation of an injunction issued against a participant in a "labor dispute." Any such injunction issued by a federal court was one "arising under" the Act, for it could have been issued only in accordance with the Act's prescriptions. [Footnote 2/1] The evident congressional intent was to provide
  for the interposition of a jury when disobedience of such an injunction was alleged. [Footnote 2/2]
  For the reasons stated by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, post at 422 U. S. 485-486, I am persuaded that §§ 10(h) and 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act made inapplicable only the anti-injunction provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and did not disturb § 11. The broad mandate of § 11, to afford trial by jury in a contempt proceeding involving an injunction issued in a labor dispute, was thus, continued in § 3692. [Footnote 2/3] See Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 356 U. S. 217 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting).
  I would reverse the judgment against Local 70 or constitutional grounds. [Footnote 2/4] Article III, § 2, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he Trial of all Crimes, except
  (Emphasis added.) The Court fails to give effect to this language when it declares that a $10,000 fine is not "of such magnitude that a jury should have been interposed to guard against bias or mistake." Ante at 422 U. S. 477. I have previously protested this Court's refusal to recognize a right to jury trial in cases where it deems an offense to be "petty." [Footnote 2/5] But even the "petty offense" exception cannot justify today's result, for it is impossible fairly to characterize either the offense or its penalty as "petty." [Footnote 2/6] Disobedience of an injunction obtained by the Board is hardly a transgression trivial by its nature, and the imposition of a $10,000 fine is not a matter most locals would take lightly. In any event, the Constitution deprives us of the power to grant or withhold trial by jury depending upon our assessment of the substantiality of the penalty. To the argument that the Framers could not have intended to provide trial by jury in cases involving only
  "small" fines and imprisonment, the response of Justices McReynolds and Butler in District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U. S. 617, 300 U. S. 633-634 (1937) (separate opinion), is apt:
  This construction is consistent with the remark in United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 330 U. S. 298 (1947), that
  "§ 11 is not operative here, for it applies only to cases 'arising under this Act,' and we have already held that the restriction upon injunctions imposed by the Act do [sic] not govern this case."
  As the entire sentence makes clear, § 11 was "not operative" because the Court had found that the underlying dispute between the Government and the Mine Workers was not the kind of "labor dispute" to which the Norris-LaGuardia Act had been addressed. See 330 U.S. at 330 U. S. 274-280. See also id. at 330 U. S. 328-330 (Black and DOUGLAS, JJ., concurring and dissenting).
  E.g., Baldwin v. New York, 399 U. S. 66, 399 U. S. 74-76 (1970) (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring in judgment); Frank v. United States, 395 U. S. 147, 395 U. S. 159-160 (1969) (Black, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., dissenting). See also Johnson v. Nebraska, 419 U. S. 949 (1974) (DOUGLAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).
  As noted in my dissenting opinion in Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U. S. 373, 384 U. S. 386-391 (1966), the "petty offense" doctrine began as an effort to identify offenses that were by their nature "petty," and the punishment prescribed or imposed was one factor to be considered in characterizing the offense. Under the Court's current formulation, the penalty is of controlling significance. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S. 506, 418 U. S. 512 (1974).
  Local 21 represents the Independent Journal's composing room employees. Following expiration of the old collective bargaining agreement between Local 21 and the Independent Journal, negotiations for a new agreement reached an impasse. As a result, Local 21 instituted strike action against the Independent Journal. See San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, 188 N.L.R.B. 673, enforced, 465 F.2d 53 (CA9). The primary strike escalated into illegal secondary boycott activity, in which four other unions, including the petitioner Local 70, participated. The National Labor Relations Board, through its Regional Director, obtained an injunction pursuant to § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as added, 61 Stat. 149, and as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), to bring a halt to that secondary activity. When the proscribed secondary conduct continued, apparently in willful disobedience of the § 10(l) injunction, criminal contempt proceedings were instituted. See ante at 422 U. S. 456-457.
  Section 3692 thus, expressly applies to more than just those cases of contempt arising under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. By its own terms, the section encompasses all cases of contempt arising under any of the several laws of the United States governing the issuance of injunctions in cases of a "labor dispute." Section 10(l) of
  Section 10(l) requires the Board's regional official to petition the appropriate district court for injunctive relief pending final Board adjudication when he has "reasonable cause" to believe that a labor organization or its agents have engaged in certain specified unfair labor practices. [Footnote 3/1] Although not all unfair labor practices potentially subject to § 10(l) injunctions need arise out of a "labor dispute," both the primary strike and the secondary activity in this case concerned the "terms or conditions of employment" of Local 21 members. Thus, the injunction and subsequent contempt proceedings clearly involved a "labor dispute" as that term is defined in the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act. [Footnote 3/2] Accordingly, § 10(l) is here a law governing the issuance of an injunction in
  a case growing out of a labor dispute, and the criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioners clearly come within the explicit reach of § 3692. [Footnote 3/3]
  There is nothing in the rather meager legislative history of § 3692 to indicate that, despite the comprehensive language of the section, Congress intended that it was to apply only to injunctions covered by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The revisers did not say that § 3692 was intended to be merely a recodification of § 11 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. [Footnote 3/4] Rather, the revisers said that the section was "based on" § 11, and then noted without additional comment the change in language from reference to specific sections of Norris-LaGuardia to the more inclusive "laws of the United States. . . ." H.R.Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A176. In contrast, although the recodification of 18 U.S.C. § 402, dealing with contempts constituting crimes, was also "based on" prior law, the revisers specifically noted that,
  Nothing in § 10(l), or in any other provision of the National Labor Relations Act, requires that § 3692 be given any different meaning in cases involving injunctions issued pursuant to the Act. To be sure, § 10(l) provides that, upon the filing of a Board petition for a temporary injunction,
  But requiring a jury trial prior to finding a union or union member in criminal contempt for violation of a § 10(l) injunction is entirely compatible with that provision. Although such a reading of § 3692 provides procedural protection to the alleged contemnor, it in no way limits the jurisdiction of the district court to grant an injunction at the request of the Board.
  Similarly, § 10(h) does not indicate a congressional intent to eliminate the jury trial requirement for criminal contempts arising from disobedience of injunctions issued pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. [Footnote 3/5] That
  Although § 10(h) thus cites parenthetically all the sections of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, including § 11's jury trial provision, which was codified at 29 U.S.C. § 111, it does so solely as an additional means of identifying the Act. Substantively § 10(h), like § 10(l), provides only that the jurisdiction of equity courts shall not be limited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. But Norris-LaGuardia, as its title indicates, was enacted to limit jurisdiction "and for other purposes." Section 11, upon which § 3692 was based, was not concerned with jurisdiction; it provided procedural protections to alleged contemnors, one of the Act's "other purposes."
  In contrast, when Congress provided for the issuance of injunctions during national emergencies as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § § 176-180, it did not merely state that the jurisdiction of district courts under those circumstances is not limited by Norris-LaGuardia. Rather, it provided simply and broadly that all of the provisions of that Act are inapplicable. 29 U.S.C. § 178(h). [Footnote 3/6]
  If, contrary to the above discussion, there is any ambiguity about § 3692, it should nonetheless be read as extending a right to a jury trial in the criminal contempt proceedings now before us under the firmly established canon of statutory construction mandating that any ambiguity concerning criminal statutes is to be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 404 U. S. 347; Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 401 U. S. 812; Smith v. United States, 360 U. S. 1, 360 U. S. 9. On the other hand, there is no sound policy argument for limiting the scope of § 3692. A guarantee of the right to a jury trial in cases of criminal contempt for violation of injunctions issued pursuant to § 10(l) does not restrict the ability of the Board's regional official to seek, or the power of the District Court to grant, temporary injunctive relief to bring an immediate halt to secondary boycotts and recognitional picketing pending adjudication of unfair labor practice charges before the Board. Nor does it interfere with the authority of the District Court to insure prompt compliance with its injunction through the use of coercive civil contempt sanctions. [Footnote 3/7] Indeed,
  construing § 3692 as it is written, so as to include this kind of an injunction issued pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, would not even affect the power of the court to impose criminal contempt sanctions. It would only require that, prior to imposition of criminal punishment for violation of a court order, the necessary facts must be found by an impartial jury, rather than by the judge whose order has been violated. [Footnote 3/8]
  In sum, the plain language of § 3692 and the absence of any meaningful contradictory legislative history, together with the established method of construing criminal statutes, require that § 3692 be interpreted to include a right to a jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings for violation of § 10(l) injunctions. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
  Section 10(l), as enacted in 1947, 61 Stat. 149, provided that, whenever the Board's regional official has "reasonable cause" to believe the truth of a charge of illegal secondary boycotting or minority picketing, the official "shall," on behalf of the Board, petition a district court for appropriate injunctive relief pending final Board adjudication. Once reasonable cause is found, a Board petition for temporary relief under § 10(l) is mandatory. See S.Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 8, 27. Congress in 1959 added charges of illegal hot cargo agreements and recognitional picketing to the mandatory injunction provision of § 10(l). 73 Stat. 544.
  H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (House Managers' statement), 57. The section would thus seem, at the most, to be of limited relevance in determining congressional intent concerning the procedures to be used in district courts issuing and enforcing § 10(l) injunctions prior to final adjudication of unfair labor practice charges by the Board.
  The principal piece of legislative history offered as evidence of an affirmative congressional intent to free from the requirements of Norris-LaGuardia criminal contempt proceedings for violations of a § 10(l) injunction is a statement by Senator Ball made during debate over the Senator's proposed amendment to that section. See 93 Cong.Rec. 4834. Particularly in view of the complete absence of any support for Senator Ball's expansive interpretation of § 10(l) in the committee and conference reports, see, e.g., S.Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 8, 27; H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (House Managers' statement), 57, that individual expression of opinion is without significant weight in the interpretation of the statute. McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U. S. 488, 283 U. S. 493-494; Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78, 232 U. S. 90.
  On its face, § 3692, which guarantees to "the accused" the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in language identical to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases, appears to be limited to trials for criminal contempt. That construction is also consistent with the decision of Congress to place the provision in Title 18, dealing with crimes and criminal procedure. Moreover, while it is clear that a trial for criminal contempt is an independent proceeding, and "no part of the original cause," Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 266 U. S. 42, 266 U. S. 64, civil contempt proceedings to insure compliance with an injunction are extensions of the original equitable cause of action. See id. at 266 U. S. 64-65. It is therefore arguable that § 10(l)'s explicit statement that the "jurisdiction" of the district courts shall not be affected by "any other provision of law" renders inapplicable any otherwise relevant statutory requirement of a jury trial for civil contempts. See In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 502 F.2d at 119-121.
  Although injunctive relief under §§ 10(j) and (l) is sought by the Board acting on behalf of the public, rather than to vindicate private economic interests, this fact has little significance in considering the policy justifications for requiring a jury trial in criminal contempt proceedings. Regardless of whether the Board or an employer has sought the injunction, in the absence of a jury trial, the judge who granted the order will be given complete authority to impose criminal punishment if he finds that his injunction has been deliberately disobeyed. The existence of this unbridled power in district court judges prior to 1932 was one of the principal factors leading to enactment of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and, in particular, passage of the § 11 jury trial requirement. See generally A. Cox & D. Bok, Cases and Materials on Labor Law 75-76 (7th ed.). Accordingly, the accommodation of § 10(l) and § 3692 "which will give the fullest possible effect to the central purposes of both [statutes]," Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, 370 U. S. 216 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting), is to recognize the Board's power to seek temporary injunctive relief under § 10(l) without regard to the limitations of Norris-LaGuardia, and to permit the issuing court to coerce obedience through civil contempt proceedings. But when the court deems it necessary to impose after-the-fact punishment through criminal contempt proceedings, § 3692 must be read to mean what it says -- the accused contemnor has the right to a jury trial. See In re Union Nacional de Trabajadores, supra at 121.