Boire v. Miami Herald Publishing Company

• Decision Date: 28 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 20982.,20982.
• Citation: 343 F.2d 17
• Parties: Harold A. BOIRE, Regional Director, Twelfth Region, National Labor Relations Board, Appellant, v. The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

343 F.2d 17 (1965)

Harold A. BOIRE, Regional Director, Twelfth Region, National Labor Relations Board, Appellant, v. The MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 20982.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 11, 1965.

Rehearing Denied April 28, 1965.

Stephen B. Goldberg, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, for appellant.

D. P. S. Paul, P. D. Thomson, Paul & Sams, Miami, Fla., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

GEWIN, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order granting the motion of the appellee for a preliminary injunction which restrains the appellant, as Regional Director for the Twelfth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, from counting the ballots cast in a representation election held under Board auspices on July 25, 1962. The question presented is whether the district court properly exercised its equity powers in enjoining the representation proceedings under the doctrine of Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958).

The instant suit represents the employer's second attempt to halt the election machinery on the ground that the Board acted in excess of its statutory powers when its regional director ordered that an election be held to determine whether the company's pressroom employees should be represented by Local 46, Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union, AFL-CIO. The prior history of this litigation is somewhat involved,¹ but the employer's basic complaint throughout has been that, under the 1959 amendment to § 9(c) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159 (c) (3), the Board cannot allow economic strikers who have been permanently replaced to vote in representation elections until it has complied with its allegedly mandatory duty to promulgate regulations governing their eligibility.² It is admitted that the Board has never issued regulations in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, which are applicable to NLRB rule-making and adjudicatory processes.³ The Board has consistently taken the position that section 9(c) (3) does not require the promulgation of regulations as a condition precedent to the eligibility of replaced economic strikers to vote in representation elections. Pursuant to the theory that section 9(c) (3) leaves the Board free to regulate the eligibility of economic strikers through the adjudicatory process, it has chosen to decide such questions on a case-by-case basis. See W. Wilton Wood, Inc., 127 N.L.R.B. 1675 (1960); Tampa Sand & Material Co., 129 N.L.R.B. 1273 (1961).

The company's complaint requests that the court declare the July 25 election void, order the ballots destroyed, and enjoin the appellant from conducting any representation election involving the company's pressroom employees until he amends his Decision and Direction of Election to prevent economic strikers not entitled to reinstatement from voting in such an election. The district court concluded that it had jurisdiction of the subject matter, that the complaint stated a "prima facie cause of action," and that plaintiff company was entitled to an adjudication whether section 9(c) (3) required the issuance of regulations as a condition precedent to allowing economic strikers who have been permanently replaced to vote in a representation election. Accordingly, the court entered a preliminary injunction against the counting of the ballots, and this appeal followed. Consequently, we are squarely faced with the question whether under these facts the district court properly exercised its equity powers in enjoining the election proceedings despite the strong congressional policy not to interfere in such matters.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint, at least for the limited purpose of determining whether relief may be granted, is furnished by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, since this is a civil action arising under an act regulating commerce.⁴ The question whether the complaint asserts a claim upon which equitable relief may be properly granted, however, is, affected by the general congressional policy to afford "review" of matters arising under section 9 of the Act only after the Board has ordered the complaining party to take some affirmative action based upon the certification. In accord with this policy, the Supreme Court has held that a Board order certifying a particular labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the unit is not a "final" order which may be reviewed by courts of appeals under section 10(f) of the Act. American Federation of Labor v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347 (1940). Consequently, certification orders are normally reviewable only when the Board petitions a court of appeals for enforcement of an order to bargain entered pursuant to section 8(a) (5).⁵ The reason for severely circumscribing court interference in representation matters is to avoid dilatory tactics which would postpone the commencement of bargaining when the employer really had no substantial objections to the conduct of the election other than a desire to delay bargaining as long as possible.⁶

In a similar vein, the federal courts have restricted the use of their equity powers to restrain representation proceedings to three very narrow situations. One exceptional set of circumstances is presented where the suit tenders "public questions particularly high in the scale of our national interest because of their international complexion." McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 17, 83 S.Ct. 671, 675, 9 L.Ed.2d 547, 552 (1963). Another exception, which has been fashioned primarily by the Second Circuit, comes into play where there is a substantial showing that Board action has violated the constitutional rights of the complaining party. See Fay v. Douds (2 Cir. 1949) 172 F.2d 720.⁷ The third exception, on which the appellee relies strongly, is predicated on the Supreme Court's decision in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958). There the court upheld a district court injunction setting aside a Board election and certification where the Board had clearly acted "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act."⁸ 79 S.Ct. at 184, 3 L.Ed.2d at 214. The courts have generally interpreted Kyne as sanctioning the use of injunctive powers only in a very narrow situation in which there is a "plain" violation of an unambiguous and mandatory provision of the statute. See Eastern Greyhound Lines v. Fusco (6 Cir. 1963) 323 F.2d 477; Consolidated Edison Co. v. McLeod (S.D.N.Y.) 202 F.Supp. 351, aff'd. 302 F.2d 354 (2 Cir. 1962); Local 1545, United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Vincent (2 Cir. 1960) 286 F.2d 127; International Ass'n of Tool Craftsmen v. Leedom (1960) 107 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 276 F.2d 514. This exception has been applied to an affirmative requirement of the Act as well as a statutory prohibition See Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union Local 46 v. McCulloch (1963) 116 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 322 F.2d 993. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, in light of the congressional purpose behind limited review of certification proceedings, representation matters are enjoinable only where the fact of a statutory violation cannot seriously be argued and where the deviation resulted in a deprivation of a "right" guaranteed by the Act.⁹

The Board urges that this suit is premature since the company is seeking to enjoin an election prior to the termination of the election procedures. Since the ballots have not been counted, the Board urges that we cannot be certain that the union will obtain a majority of the votes and thus be entitled to certification. In Leedom v. Kyne, it is true that the union waited to bring its suit until after it had been certified as bargaining representative. However, in the instant case, the company challenges the validity of the entire election, just as the company involved did in Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. v. McLeod (2 Cir. 1962) 300 F.2d 222, 229. When this fact is taken into account, it seems clear that the time at which the suit is instituted has little relevance. This is certainly the implied holding of McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963). Hence, we hold that the suit was not prematurely instituted.

The Board also urges that Kyne can be distinguished from the instant case since in Kyne a certified union brought the action while in the instant case the complaint was filed by the employer. It is argued that the union's remedy by way of section 8 (a) (5) is far more tenuous than the employer's remedy. While this argument might have merit as it relates to a union which has lost an election and thus has no remedy under the Act, it does not seem an entirely satisfactory explanation of Kyne. The employer's recourse in the instant case if the union is certified as the bargaining representative depends upon the occurrence of at least two contingencies: (1) the union must decide to file an unfair labor practice charge and (2) the Board must sustain such charge and petition for enforcement of its order. In addition, the Act places a manifest hardship on the employer, for he must run the risk of incurring a meritorious unfair labor practice charge in order to challenge the validity of the election.¹⁰ However, it must be assumed that Congress was aware of these obstacles to a challenge of election procedures, and that it intentionally made it difficult for the employer to attack election procedures in order to insure that frivolous complaints were not utilized to bring about a postponement of collective bargaining. Therefore, we do not deem a distinction based upon the relative tenuousness of the union's remedy in Kyne entirely satisfactory. But see Volney Felt Mills v. LeBus (...