Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
| Decision Date | 09 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 6837.,6837. |
| Citation | 109 F.2d 9 |
| Parties | INLAND STEEL CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Ernest S. Ballard, Ralph E. Bowers, Frederic Burnham, and Herbert A. Friedlich, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ernest A. Gross, Bertram Edises, and Richard C. Barrett, Attys., all of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.
This case is here on a petition by the Inland Steel Company, a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner," "Inland" or "the company") pursuant to Section 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act () to review and set aside a final order of the National Labor Relations Board, (hereafter referred to as the "Board") entered November 12, 1938 against the petitioner. The Board answers and prays for affirmance and enforcement of its order.
A charge and an amended charge having been filed jointly by the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, (hereinafter called the "SWOC") and the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, Lodge Nos. 64, 1010 and 1101, (hereinafter called the "Amalgamated") the Board, on June 12, 1937, issued its complaint against the petitioner alleging that it had and was engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2) and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. So far as here seems pertinent, the complaint, in addition to jurisdictional allegations, alleged that on June 8, 1937, the production, maintenance and transportation employees at both of petitioner's plants, (one located at Indiana Harbor and the other at Chicago Heights) exclusive of certain categories of employees, constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act; that on that date the majority of petitioner's employees in said unit had designated the SWOC as their representative for collective bargaining, and on and subsequent to June 8, 1937, petitioner, by refusing to enter into a signed agreement with the SWOC covering wages, hours, and conditions of employment, regardless of the terms proposed, had refused and was refusing to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act. It also alleged that petitioner, on or about April 14, 1937, dominated and interfered with the formation, and from that date to and including the date of the issuance of the complaint, actively supported, dominated and interfered with the administration of a labor organization of its employees known as Steel Workers Independent Union, Inc., (hereinafter called the "Independent") thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(2) of the Act. It further alleged that, beginning in July, 1936, petitioner had, by its officers and agents, urged and warned its employees to refrain from joining or retaining membership in the SWOC or the Amalgamated Lodges, thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act and thereby committing unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
On June 18, 1937, petitioner filed its answer specifically denying all violations of the Act as charged in the complaint.
The complaint came on for a hearing at Chicago, Illinois, on June 28, 1937, before Charles A. Wood, designated by the Board as Trial Examiner, and continued until October 13, 1937. Independent was permitted to intervene on certain issues only, and has filed in this court its petition to review the Board's order insofar as it is affected thereby, and said petition is now pending as No. 7013. Independent's petition and the Board's answer thereto will be disposed of in this opinion.
The printed record before us contains more than 5000 pages, and a mere summary of the pertinent evidence, as it bears upon the numerous issues involved, is quite impractical within an opinion of reasonable length. Inasmuch as many of the questions in issue are dependent upon the evidence, we shall, when considering them, discuss such evidence as seems pertinent thereto.
On October 11, 1937, two days before the closing of the hearings before the Trial Examiner, the Board entered an order transferring the proceedings to, and continuing them before, the Board. Without any intermediate report by the Examiner, or any proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, or order, and without briefs or oral argument, the Board, on April 5, 1938, issued its final decision, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. On May 4, 1938, Inland filed in this court a petition to review and set aside the Board's order. This petition, on motion of the Board, was dismissed by this court on June 4, 1938, 7 Cir., 97 F.2d 1006. Three days thereafter, the Board issued its proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, and gave petitioner leave to file exceptions and brief, and to be heard in oral argument. The proposed order was substantially the same as the one which had been entered previously and set aside. Thereafter, on November 12, 1938, after the submission of briefs by the respective parties and the hearing of oral argument, the Board issued its decision and order, including findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The decision of the Board determined:
(1) That the production, maintenance and transportation workers in both plants together1 constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining under Section 9 (a) of the Act.
(2) That on June 8, 1937, a majority of the employees of such unit had designated SWOC as their bargaining representative, and that SWOC was the exclusive representative of all the employees in this unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(3) That Inland had refused to bargain collectively with the SWOC because of its refusal to enter into a signed agreement governing terms and conditions of employment, even though an understanding was reached on such matters, and that such refusal was in violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act.2
(4) That Inland had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of Independent and had contributed support to it and, by its illegal sponsorship of the Independent, had interfered with or coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
Petitioner was ordered to cease and desist from —
(1) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Independent;
(2) Refusing to bargain collectively with SWOC as the exclusive representative of the employees found to constitute the appropriate unit; and
(3) Interfering with or coercing its employees in the right to self organization.
Petitioner was further affirmatively ordered to —
(1) Withdraw all recognition from the Independent as a representative of any of its employees for the purpose of the Act, and to completely disestablish the Independent as such representative;
(2) Upon request, bargain collectively with SWOC as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found to be appropriate, with respect to wages, hours and other conditions of employment; and
(3) "If an understanding is reached on such matter, embody such understanding in a signed agreement."
The Contested Issues.
(1) Whether or not Inland had been guilty of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.3
(2) Whether or not the decision of the Board fixing the appropriate unit for bargaining purposes is valid.4
(3) Whether or not the finding of the Board that Inland was guilty of unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8
(1) and 8 (2) of the Act, in that it fostered, actively promoted and otherwise encouraged the organization and growth of, and contributed financial and other support to the Independent, and discouraged membership in the SWOC, is supported by substantial evidence.
(4) Whether or not Inland received a full and fair hearing as required by law.5
Petitioner, in its brief, has first discussed the question presented by Contested Issue No. 4. We shall do likewise. An argument of great length is made in an effort to demonstrate that the Trial Examiner was so biased and prejudiced as to deprive Inland of a full and fair hearing. The Board, in its decision, makes no mention of this attack upon the Examiner, but in its brief insists that his conduct was characterized by complete impartiality with the single purpose of insuring a record which would fully and fairly present all aspects of the questions presented. We are unable, of course, to do more than summarize the numerous criticisms directed at the Examiner's conduct of the hearing.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner adopted the practice of interrupting counsel and witnesses, and compelling further argument or statements to be "off the record." The court reporter was forbidden to take notes of such "off the record" matter. When back "on the record," the Examiner would summarize what had taken place "off the record." Over objection of counsel, this practice continued during the first five days of the hearing, culminating in an incident which occurred on the afternoon of the fifth day, upon which great stress is laid. It seems that Inland, at its own expense, but at the request of the Board, had prepared a list of the names and occupations of 6135 employees, claimed by the Board to be members of the SWOC. This exhibit, no copy of which had been made, was introduced by the Board, and counsel for Inland asked leave to withdraw it. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor R. Board
...especially evidence itself in sarcastic and rough treatment of witnesses, as did that of the examiners in Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 9, and in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, cited above, from both of which I quote bel......
-
Brotherhood of Railroad Train. v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PR CO.
...Co., 114 F.2d 905, 909 (6th Cir. 1940), cert. denied 312 U.S. 689, 61 S.Ct. 621, 85 L.Ed. 1126 (1941); Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 109 F.2d 9, 20 (7th Cir. 1940). See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); National Labor Relations Bd. v. Pitt......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Baldwin L. Works
...342. 23 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N.L.R. B., 8 Cir., 103 F.2d 147; Cupples Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 106 F.2d 100; Inland Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 109 F.2d 9; N.L.R.B. v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Cir., 114 F.2d 905; N.L.R.B. v. Washington Dehydrated Food Co., 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 980; Bethlehem St......
-
Board of Trustees, Laramie County School Dist. No. 1 v. Spiegel
...from bias and prejudice and imbued with the desire to accord to the parties equal consideration . . .' Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir. 1940, 109 F.2d 9, 20. Even though the appellant-Board of Trustees ruled that it would not stand for voir dire inquiry, the Distri......