Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. NATIONAL LABOR R. BD., 3437
| Decision Date | 03 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 3467.,No. 3437,3437 |
| Citation | 120 F.2d 126 |
| Parties | BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, Limited, et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. GENERAL BODY OF EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES UNDER PLAN OF EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATION AT FORE RIVER YARD OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
John L. Hall and Claude R. Branch, both of Boston, Mass., for Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., Limited et al.
Norman F. Edmonds and Bernard J. Donoghue, both of Washington, D. C., for the Board.
Before MAGRUDER, MAHONEY, and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges.
On October 8, 1940, this court issued a decree enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board in the above entitled cause, 114 F.2d 930. Subsequently, the Board petitioned for an order requiring the company and certain designated officers and agents thereof to appear and show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt of our decree. Citations issued, and the various respondents duly appeared and filed a joint answer. By order of this court a hearing on the petition and answer has been set for June 9, 1941, before the full court.
The present motion by the Board asks two things: (1) It moves that the court issue an order and subpoenas requiring the Independent Union of Fore River Workers, its officers and agents, and in particular John E. Dennehy and Charles B. Ferris, secretary and treasurer respectively thereof, to produce at a designated time and place for the purpose of pre-trial discovery, inspection, copying or photographing, certain described books, records and documents of the said union which are alleged, on information and belief, to contain "evidence relevant and material to the alleged reorganization and continued existence of the Plan of Employees' Representation at the Fore River Plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company (which organization was ordered disestablished under the enforcement decree of this court dated October 8, 1940) under the name of the Independent or to the formation and the continued existence of the Independent as the alleged successor of the above referred to Plan of Employees' Representation". (2) It moves that the court issue an order and subpoenas requiring certain named individuals, all of whom are officers or members of the Board of Delegates of the Independent and all of whom are employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company at its Fore River Plant, to appear at a designated time and place for pre-trial oral examination by counsel for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Certain Complaints Under Investigation by an Investigating Committee of Judicial Council of Eleventh Circuit, Matter of
...course of an original contempt proceeding for violation of the court's decree enforcing an order of the NLRB); Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. NLRB, 120 F.2d 126 (1st Cir.1941) (same). Under this analysis, we find the terms of section 332(d)(1) sufficiently clear to confer original jurisdic......
-
Harris v. Nelson, 199
...Co. v. Werckmeister, 221 U.S. 603, 609, 31 S.Ct. 676, 55 L.Ed. 873 (1911) (subpoenas duces tecum); Bethlehem Shipbuildi g Corp. v. NLRB, 120 F.2d 126, 127 (C.A.1st Cir. 1941) (order that certain documents be produced for the purpose of pretrial discovery). In price v. Johnston, supra, this ......
-
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
...of Appeals. Procedure under this rule is akin to that approved without rule of court in the First Circuit in Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1 Cir., 120 F.2d 126, where it was held, in analogy with the practice of the District Courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Steinerfilm, Inc.
...of contempt has been filed. NLRB v. Deena Artware, Inc., 361 U.S. 398, 80 S.Ct. 441, 4 L.Ed.2d 400 (1960); Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. NLRB, 120 F.2d 126 (1st Cir.1941). Second, uniform agency practice runs contrary to the NLRB's position. Our survey of practice by the SEC, FTC, ICC, De......