N.L.R.B. ex rel. Intern. Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Lite Div.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | 78-1434,P,AFL-CIO-CL,Nos. 78-1433,s. 78-1433 |
| Citation | 606 F.2d 929 |
| Parties | 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528, 87 Lab.Cas. P 11,588 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on Relation of INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS,etitioners-Appellees, v. DUTCH BOY, INC., GLOW LITE DIVISION and Dutch Boy, Inc., EOD Division, Respondents-Appellants. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DUTCH BOY, INC., GLOW LITE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Richard L. Barnes of Kothe, Nichols & Wolfe, Inc., Tulsa, Okl., for respondents-appellants.
Richard B. Bader, Atty., Washington, D. C. (Aileen A. Armstrong, Asst. Gen. Counsel for Sp. Litigation, John S. Irving, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., with him on the Brief), for petitioners-appellees.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BARRETT and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court enforcing three subpoenas duces tecum directed to two divisions of Dutch Boy, Inc. (Dutch Boy), pursuant to section 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 161(2). The order also dismissed Dutch Boy's cross-application for enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum it directed to a representative of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (Board). Dutch Boy's subpoena previously had been revoked by the administrative law judge conducting the underlying unfair labor practice proceedings.
The issues we must resolve are whether the trial court properly dismissed Dutch Boy's cross-application and whether the trial court abused its discretion in enforcing the Board's subpoenas.
On February 17 and April 7, 1977, a union seeking to represent certain Dutch Boy employees filed with the Board unfair labor practice charges alleging, Inter alia, Dutch Boy had threatened to close its plant if the employees elected the union to be their bargaining representative. On April 25, 1977, the charges were settled with the approval of the Board. In the settlement Dutch Boy agreed it would not threaten to close the plant or interfere in any way with its employees' exercise of their rights under the Act.
Thereafter, a Board-conducted representation election was held, which the union lost. After the election, the union filed various new unfair labor practice charges against Dutch Boy, among which was an assertion Dutch Boy had discriminatorily laid off a large number of employees, most after execution of the settlement agreement and after the union had filed its election petition, in order to discourage employees from voting for the union.
The Board's regional director investigated the charges and concluded that Dutch Boy had violated the agreement. He therefore set aside the agreement and issued an administrative complaint alleging that Dutch Boy had engaged in a continuing and pervasive campaign of unfair labor practices from February 1977 until after the representation election was held in July 1977.
Thereafter, a consolidated hearing on the union's election objections and the unfair labor practice charges was held before an administrative law judge. During the hearing the administrative law judge revoked a subpoena duces tecum issued by Dutch Boy, because the Board's general counsel, invoking 29 C.F.R. 102.118, 1 refused to consent to the production request. After revoking the Board's first subpoenas as overbroad, the administrative law judge refused to quash later Board subpoenas, finding them sufficiently limited and relevant to the Board's case. Many of the documents sought by the Board related to whether Dutch Boy artificially created the need to lay off a large number of employees, in effect carrying out a threat to terminate plant operations.
Dutch Boy allowed the Board access to some, but not all, of the requested documents. After the hearing was recessed indefinitely to allow the Board to seek enforcement of the subpoenas, Dutch Boy advised that it would allow access to the documents only if the Board would reciprocate by allowing Dutch Boy access to Board files requested in the previously revoked subpoena. Dutch Boy asserts that information necessary to a defense against the underlying unfair labor practice charges it wishes to raise can only be found in the Board files.
The Board then initiated this action, seeking enforcement of its subpoenas. Dutch Boy moved to dismiss the Board's application and cross-applied for enforcement of its own subpoena. The district court, after a hearing, ordered enforcement of the Board's subpoenas, finding them to be directed to relevant documents, and dismissed Dutch Boy's cross-application for lack of jurisdiction.
We hold the trial court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the cross-application for enforcement of Dutch Boy's previously revoked subpoena.
Section 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 161(2), expressly grants district courts jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued in connection with proper Board investigations and hearings. The section conditions that grant of jurisdiction "upon application by the Board," however, and it is settled that a district court is without jurisdiction to hear a private application for enforcement of a subpoena. See, e. g., Wilmot v. Doyle, 403 F.2d 811, 814-16 (9th Cir. 1968).
Dutch Boy contends its cross-application is in the nature of a counterclaim; thus, once the district court's jurisdiction was invoked by the Board the court was empowered to hear its cross-application. A permissive counterclaim must be supported by independent jurisdiction. Interstate Nat'l Bank v. Luther, 221 F.2d 382, 390 (10th Cir.), Cert. dismissed, 350 U.S. 944, 76 S.Ct. 297, 100 L.Ed. 823 (1955). Since no independent jurisdiction supporting its claim exists, Dutch Boy must be contending that its cross-application is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim falling within the ancillary jurisdiction of the court. See, e. g., Moore v. New York Cotton Exch., 270 U.S. 593, 46 S.Ct. 367, 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926). The inherent character of a compulsory counterclaim, however, is that it is the type of claim which must be raised before the current tribunal or be forever lost to the claimant. See generally 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1409 (1971). Congress has empowered the courts of appeals to hear arguments like those raised by Dutch Boy when there is a final order of the Board, upon a petition to enforce, or to set aside, that final order. Sections 10(e) and (f), 29 U.S.C. §§ 160(e) and (f). Therefore, since Dutch Boy can raise its claims later in the underlying proceedings, we conclude its cross-application is not in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim, and the district court correctly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Advancing several supporting contentions, Dutch Boy also argues that the district court erred by enforcing the Board's subpoenas. We disagree.
Subpoenas issued by the Board pursuant to section 11(1), 29 U.S.C. § 161(1), are to be enforced by a district court upon application of the Board if the court finds "that a proceeding is pending before the Board of which it has jurisdiction and the evidence sought relates to or touches the matter under investigation." Cudahy Packing Co. v. NLRB, 117 F.2d 692, 694 (10th Cir. 1941). Unless we find the trial court arbitrarily ordered enforcement of the subpoena, without support in the record, we will not disturb its ruling. See Shotkin v. Nelson, 146 F.2d 402, 404 (10th Cir. 1944) ().
The trial judge found that all the records and documents sought by the Board directly related to the allegations in the complaint that formed the basis of the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding then pending. He also noted that the administrative law judge had previously ruled in favor of the Board on the relevancy question, and that, "other than the bare assertion . . . in the broadest of terms that such documents are not relevant, (Dutch Boy did not meet its) burden of showing by specific evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp.
...Relations Board v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 610 F.2d 99, 106-107 (3d Cir. 1979); National Labor Relations Board v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Lite Div., 606 F.2d 929, 931-932 (10th Cir. 1979). One court has permitted the filing of a counterclaim in order to contest release of the request......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Children's Hosp. Medical Center of Northern California
...90 S.Ct. 1358, 25 L.Ed.2d 649 (1970); NLRB v. Frederick Cowan and Company, 522 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir.1975); NLRB v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Lite Division, 606 F.2d 929, 933 (10th Cir.1979); NLRB v. Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 610 F.2d 99, 112 (3d Cir.1979); see NLRB v. International Medica......
-
Walker v. New Mexico at Hobbs Ctr.
...jurisdiction and thus require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. See NLRB ex rel. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio, & Mach. Workers v. Dutch Boy, Inc., 606 F.2d 929, 932 (10th Cir.1979). “Since Congress enacted Section 1367 in 1990, [however,] the Tenth Circuit has not determined whe......
-
Lunnon v. United States
...permissive counterclaim must be supported by independent jurisdiction." NLRB ex rel. Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Lite Div., 606 F.2d 929, 932 (10th Cir. 1979). (Other courts have questioned whether, after the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 136......