National Labor Relations Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corporation

• Decision Date: 18 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 37,37
• Citation: 82 S.Ct. 344,7 L.Ed.2d 312,368 U.S. 318
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. OCHOA FERTILIZER CORPORATION et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

368 U.S. 318

82 S.Ct. 344

7 L.Ed.2d 312

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v OCHOA FERTILIZER CORPORATION et al.

No. 37.

Argued Nov. 16, 1961.

Decided Dec. 18, 1961.

Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B.

No appearance for the respondents.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondents, an employer and two labor organizations, waived the procedures for adjudgment of the allegations of an unfair labor practice complaint issued against them under the National Labor Relations Act, and agreed upon the form of a cease-and-desist order to be entered by the National Labor Relations Board against them.¹ The complaint alleged that the employer violated § 8(a)(1), (2) and (3), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1—3), and the labor organizations § 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), of the Act, as amended, by executing an maintaining a collective bargaining agreement which conditioned employment upon union membership, vested the respondent unions with exclusive control over hiring, and provided for the checkoff of union dues and fees. The prohibitions of the consent order were not limited to the relationship between the employer and the two labor organizations. The respondent employer was directed to refrain from performing, maintaining or giving effect to such an agreement with the respondent unions, 'or any other labor organization,' and from otherwise unlawfully encouraging membership in the respondent unions, 'or any other labor organization,' by discrimination as to hire, tenure, or terms or conditions of employment; and the respondent unions were directed to refrain from performing, maintaining, or giving effect to such an agreement with the respondent employer, 'or any other employer, over which the Board will assert jurisdiction,' and from otherwise causing or attempting to cause the respondent employer, 'or any other employer over which the Board will assert jurisdiction' to discharge, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against any employee in violation of § 8(a)(3) of the Act.²

The respondents also agreed that 'any United States Court of Appeals for any appropriate circuit may on application by the Board, enter a decree enforcing the Order of the Board * * *,' and that 'Respondents waive all defenses to the entry of the decree * * *.' R. 29. The Board petitioned the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for enforcement of the order pursuant to § 10(e) of the Act.³ The enforcement petition submitted the order in the form agreed upon and recited the terms of the settlement stipulation.

The Court of Appeals, sua sponte,⁴ and initially without filing an opinion giving reasons supporting its action, entered a decree which excised the phrases 'or any other labor organization' and 'or any other employer over which the Board will assert jurisdiction' wherever they appeared in the consent order and the compliance notices, and enforced the order as so modified. Subsequently, on the Board's second motion for reconsideration, the Court reconsidered its action in light of the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Labor Board v. Combined Century Theatres, Inc., 46 LRRMan. 2858. That case held that in the face of a like stipulation 'and in the absence of any exception to the order taken before the Board or the showing of any extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not consider respondents' objections.' The motion for rehearing was denied in an opinion covering the present case and six others in which the Court of Appeals had similarly modified orders entered by the Board. 283 F.2d 26.⁵ Because we believed the case presented an important question of authority of the Court of Appeals in the premises we granted certiorari. 365 U.S. 833, 81 S.Ct. 746, 5 L.Ed.2d 743.

The authority of the Court of Appeals to modify Board orders when the Board petitions for their enforcement derives from the provision of § 10(e) authorizing the court 'to make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Board.' However, the immediately following sentence of § 10(e) provides that 'No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.' At least when the Board has not 'patently traveled outside the orbit of its authority,' National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 388, 66 S.Ct. 553, 554, 90 L.Ed. 739,⁶ our cases have uniformly held that in the absence of a showing within the statutory exception of 'extraordinary circumstances' the failure or neglect of the respondent to urge an objection in the Board's proceedings forecloses judicial consideration of the objection in enforcement proceedings. Marshall Field & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 318 U.S. 253, 6o S.Ct. 585, 87 L.Ed. 744; May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 326 U.S. 376, 386, n. 5, 66 S.Ct. 203, 209, 90 L.Ed. 145; National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., supra; National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 350, 73 S.Ct. 287, 290, 97 L.Ed. 377; National Labor Relations Board v. District 50, 355 U.S. 453, 463—464, 78 S.Ct. 386, 392, 2 L.Ed.2d 401. These cases involved contested proceedings before the Board, as did National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930, and Communications Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 362 U.S. 479, 80 S.Ct. 838, 4 L.Ed.2d 896, upon which the Court of Appeals relied. The limitation of § 10(e) applies a fortiori to the consideration of an objection to enforcement made by a respondent who has consented to the terms of the order. See National Labor Relations Board v. Combined Century Theatres, Inc., supra.

We understand the opinion of the Court of Appeals to hold that the limitation of § 10(e) is inapplicable when the record contains no findings or facts supporting the order—that 'affirmative reasons must appear to warrant broad injunctions.' 283 F.2d, at 29—30. The Court noted that there were no such findings or facts in this record—not even a 'stipulation disclosing facts which warrant broad relief.' Id., at 31. The court reasoned that the limitation of § 10(e) was therefore no barrier to its sua sponte revision of the order and stated that 'We do not think that consent makes the difference.' Id., at 31. Contrary to the Court of Appeals, we think that consent makes a significant difference; it relieves the Board of the very necessity of making a supporting record. A decree rendered by consent 'is always affirmed, without considering the merits of the cause.' Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis R. Co. v. United States, 113 U.S. 261, 266, 5 S.Ct. 460, 462, 28 L.Ed. 971. There are not here applicable any of the exceptions, such as a claim of lack of actual consent, or of fraud in the procurement of the order, or of lack of federal...