Madden v. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, ETC.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 58 C 1512.,58 C 1512. |
| Citation | 166 F. Supp. 862 |
| Parties | Ross M. MADDEN, Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS, Inc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Joseph I. Nachman and Duane Beeson, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mozart G. Ratner, Jacobs & Ratner, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
This case came on to be heard on petition of Ross M. Madden, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, for an injunction under Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l) and the court having heard petitioner's evidence in support of the allegations of its petition and petitioner having rested, respondents called petitioner as their first witness to testify concerning respondents' allegations in their several answers and motion to dismiss that petitioner had not, prior to filing the petition herein, conducted a preliminary investigation of the amended charge upon which the petition is based, as required by Section 10(l) of the Act and Section 101.4 of the NLRB's Statements of Procedures, Series 7, as amended, and the court having overruled petitioner's motion to quash the subpoena and the subpoena duces tecum requiring petitioner to testify concerning the preliminary investigation alleged in the petition to have been conducted by him and under his supervision and to bring with him his files, memoranda, and other papers bearing upon such investigation and petitioner, on advice of counsel, declining to produce said files and documents and declining to testify concerning the conduct of a preliminary investigation by him and under his supervision and, because of instructions of his superiors, the NLRB and the General Counsel, declining to answer the questions of respondents' counsel concerning same; and counsel for respondents having moved that the petition for injunctive relief be dismissed for failure of the Regional Director to comply with said subpoenas and having further moved that the petition be dismissed as against respondent MMP for want of evidence that respondent MMP participated in any of the matters alleged in the petition, and the Court having heard arguments of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, makes the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. Conduct by petitioner of a preliminary investigation of the amended charge as required by Section 10(l) of the Act and Section 101.4 of the NLRB's Statements of Procedure prior to filing a petition for injunction based thereon is a condition precedent to petitioner's right to file a petition and is a jurisdictional requirement compliance with which respondents are entitled to challenge and litigate in this proceeding. N.L.R.B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 U.S. 322, 325, 71 S.Ct. 758, 95 L.Ed. 969; Goodman Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 234 F.2d 775, 776; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 54-55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598.
2. Petitioner is not by law entitled to withhold evidence as to its compliance with said jurisdictional requirement in this proceeding in which petitioner is invoking the court's aid and seeking judicial relief. United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 321.
3. Petitioner's refusal to testify and produce the evidence required by the subpoena deprives respondents of opportunity to establish a relevant defense, by due process of law.
4. No evidence has been produced connecting respondent MMP with the events complained of in the petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons, an order should be entered dismissing the petition for injunctive relief as to all respondents.
On motion of respondents, the Court makes the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Stott v. United States
- Fried v. United States
-
McLeod v. COMPRESSED AIR, FOUNDATION, ETC., LOCAL NO. 147
...Board v. Department & Specialty Store Employees Union, D.C. Cal.1960, 187 F.Supp. 619, or Madden v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, D.C.Ill.1958, 166 F.Supp. 862, affirmed 7 Cir., 259 F.2d 297. Inasmuch as the evidence adduced supports both theories the Board had reas......
-
Cosentino v. LOCAL 28, INTERNAT'L ORGAN. OF MASTERS, ETC., 16161.
...Samuel Perry, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Madden v. International Organization of Masters, etc., 166 F.Supp. 862. This order dismissed a prior suit instituted on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referr......