United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Herzog, Civ. A. No. 5826-52

• Decision Date: 27 January 1953
• Docket Number: 5828-52.,5827-52,Civ. A. No. 5826-52
• Citation: 110 F. Supp. 220
• Parties: UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE) et al. v. HERZOG et al. AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASS'N v. HERZOG et al. INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA v. HERZOG et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

110 F. Supp. 220

UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE) et al. v. HERZOG et al.

AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASS'N v. HERZOG et al.

INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA v. HERZOG et al.

Civ. A. Nos. 5826-52, 5827-52, 5828-52.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

January 27, 1953.

David Scribner, New York City, Donner, Kinoy & Perlin, by Arthur Kinoy, New York City, Forer & Rein, by David Rein, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs United E., R. & M. W. of America and others.

David Rein and Joseph Forer, Washington, D. C., Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, for plaintiffs American Com. Ass'n.

Forer & Rein, by David Rein, Washington, D. C., Harold I. Cammer, New York City, for plaintiff International F. & L. W. U. of U. S. and Canada.

George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Attorney, Dominick L. Manoli, Attorney, Arnold Ordman, Attorney, all of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

LETTS, District Judge.

At the time oral arguments were heard there was submitted for the court's determination the motion of defendant to dismiss in each of the above captioned cases. At that time there was likewise submitted for the court's decision the motion of each plaintiff for permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants who are officers and members of the National Labor Relations Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) from enforcing the Board's order of December 19, 1952 requiring the plaintiffs to file answers to questionnaires and providing that if such answers were not on file by December 30, 1952 (later extended to January 7, 1953) plaintiffs would be declared out of compliance with the filing provisions of Sec. 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(h) (hereafter referred to as the Act).

At the time of the issuance of such order the plaintiffs and each of them had been in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act, their officers having filed the non-Communist affidavits required by the Act, using for that purpose the forms supplied by the Board. The Board had acknowledged the receipt of such affidavits and advised the plaintiffs that they were considered in compliance with the requirements of the Act. By its order of December 19, 1952 the Board required plaintiffs' officers to file additional affidavits answering six additional questions. The first four of such questions called for a reaffirmation of the affidavits previously filed by the officers of the plaintiffs in 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952. The fifth and sixth questions required the officers of the plaintiffs to swear that at all times since the filing of the first affidavits under the requirements of the Act they have not been members of the Communist party or members of a proscribed organization.

It appears that the Board's action of which plaintiffs complain was prompted by a presentment handed up by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The presentment reported that a number of officers of the plaintiffs had appeared before the grand jury and, while identifying the affidavits filed by them with the Board, had pleaded their constitutional privilege with respect to the truth or falsity of the contents of such affidavits. The...