National Labor Relations Board v. Mexia Textile Mills National Labor Relations Board v. Pool Manufacturing Company

• Decision Date: 15 May 1950
• Docket Number: Nos. 434,435,s. 434
• Citation: 94 L.Ed. 1067,70 S.Ct. 833,339 U.S. 563
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner, v. MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, Inc. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner, v. POOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

339 U.S. 563

70 S.Ct. 833

94 L.Ed. 1067

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner,

v MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, Inc.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, petitioner,

v. POOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Nos. 434, 435.

Decided May 15, 1950.

Mr. A. Norman Somers, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. John M. Scott, of Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a proceeding brought by the National Labor Relations Board charging unfair labor practices of the respondent, Mexia Textile Mills, a manufacturer of cotton goods at Mexia, Texas, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act¹ and the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.² On the Board's petition for enforcement of its cease and desist order, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit referred the case back to the Board with directions to take evidence and report whether the order had been complied with by the respondent; if so, whether the matter should not be dismissed as moot; and if not, what recommendations the Board had to make. We granted certiorari upon the claim that the effect of the order of the Court of Appeals was at variance with previous decisions of this Court. 1950, 338 U.S. 909, 70 S.Ct. 348.

The pertinent facts are these. In November 1944, the Board conducted an election at the respondent's plant, in which the Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O., received an overwhelming majority.³ The Board thereupon certified that Union as the exclusive representative of those production and maintenance employees who constituted the appropriate bargaining unit designated by the Board. In January 1947 the Union filed a charge with the Board complaining that respondent had refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union, and was thus guilty of unfair labor practices within the meaning of §§ 8(1) and 8(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board issued its complaint pursuant to those charges in June 1947. Respondent, in answer, admitted that it was engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act, denied the charges contained in the complaint, and alleged, inter alia, that the Union no longer represented a majority of employees in the bargaining unit, though the number of employees who had withdrawn was unknown to respondent. A hearing was held before a trial examiner in August 1947. The Trial Examiner denied respondent's motions for a more definite statement of the complaint, and for an order permitting the inspection and copying of certain evidence. Respondent's counsel thereupon withdrew from the hearing and took no further part therein.

In December 1947 the Trial Examiner issued his report. He concluded that 'From the evidence, it is apparent that, although the respondent conferred with the Union on possible contract provisions, it did not bargain in good faith and had no intention of doing so.' The failure to bargain was manifest from evidence of incidents taking place from the time of the certification of the Union until a month before its complaint was filed. Unilateral wage increases and respondent's efforts to shunt the Union representatives from one company official to another in search of the final authority in wage and contract negotiations—these and other findings led the Examiner to conclude that 'an unmistakable effort to escape genuine collective bargaining' and demonstated. Further, the Examiner determined, there was no merit in the respond- ent's contention that the Union did not retain the membership of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit. Respondent, having taken no part in the hearing, did not of course introduce any evidence to support its allegation.

The Examiner recommended, in substance, that respondent be ordered to cease and desist from its refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union. No exceptions to the report were filed within the time permitted by § 10(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, and in July 1948 the Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings and issued the recommended order, as required by § 10(c).

In April 1949 the Board petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for enforcement of its order. Respondent filed a motion for the taking of additional evidence, alleging that since the report of the Trial Examiner, 'during the year 1948,' it had 'entered into good faith bargaining with the Union,' but that an agreement had been prevented by the Union's 'arbitrary, capricious and intransigent attitude * * *.' A copy of a letter respondent had sent to the Board's Regional Director, shortly after the Trial Examiner's report, was attached to respondent's motion. The letter stated that while respondent 'did not see fit to argue' about past 'disagreements and strikes' before the Trial Examiner, it was then 'more than willing to accept (his) recommendations * * *.' Respondent also alleged that after 'the record in the instant case was closed' it had come to the conclusion that the Union no longer represented a majority of employees in the bargaining unit.

On June 3, 1949, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered that 'action on petitioner's motion should be deferred and the matter be referred back to the Board with directions to take evidence and report: (1) whether and to what extent its order had been complied with by respondent; (2) whether and why, if the order has been complied with, the matter should not be dismissed as moot; and (3) if the matter is not moot, what recommendations or requests the Board has to make in the premises * * *.'

We think it plain from the cases that the employer's compliance with an order of the Board does not render the cause moot, depriving the Board of its opportunity to secure enforcement from an appropriate court.⁴ Indeed, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has apparently recognized this rule both before and after the decision in the instant cases.⁵ A Board order imposes a continuing obligation; and the Board is entitled to have the resumption of the unfair practice barred by an enforcement decree. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remarked, 'no more is involved than whether what the law already condemned, the court shall forbid; and the fact that its judgment adds to existing sanctions that of punishment for contempt, is not a circumstance to which a court will ordinarily lend a friendly ear.' National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corp., 1950, 179 F.2d 221, 222. The Act does not require the Board to play hide-and-seek with those guilty of unfair labor practices.

That the respondent doubts the Union's ability to muster a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit does not justify the denial of an enforcement decree. Explicit congressional policy stands in the way of permitting the employers to stall enforcement of the Board's orders on this ground. Under § 9(c) of the Act 'an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf' may 'assert that the individual or labor organization, which has been certified or is being currently recognized by their employer as the bargaining representative, is no longer a representative as defined in section 9(a) * * *.' § 9(c)(1)(A)(ii). Petitions by the employer concerning selection of bargaining representatives are limited to those 'alleging that one or more individuals or labor organizations have presented to him a claim to be recognized as the representative defined in section 9(a) * * *.' § 9(c)(1)(B). To authorize the employer to assert diminution in membership in the certified union in an enforcement proceeding subverts the statutory mandate to leave these matters to the Board in separate proceedings under § 9(c).⁶

It is of course equally clear that a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to § 10(e) of the labor relations acts is 'addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court.' Southport Petroleum Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1942, 315 U.S. 100, 104, 62 S.Ct. 452, 454, 455, 86 L.Ed. 718; National Labor Relations Board v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 1943, 318 U.S. 9, 63 S.Ct. 394, 87 L.Ed. 579. We are told that the order of the Court of Appeals is justified in this case because the issue of compliance, so clearly irrelevant in the ordinary course of review, is imbued with relevance should the respondent's counsel move to adduce additional evidence when the case reaches the Court of Appeals.

The cases are to the contrary. National Labor Relations Board v. Condensor Corp., 3 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 67, 81; National Labor Relations Board v. Swift & Co., 8 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 222, 224; National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 9 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 488, 493, and cases therein cited. If compliance with an order of the Board is irrelevant to the reviewing court's function after the new evidence has been adduced, we do not see that there is point in adducing evidence of that compliance. This Court has emphasized that the 'power to adduce additional evidence granted to the Circuit Court of Appeals by § 10(e) cannot be employed to enlarge the statutory scope of judicial review.' National Labor Relations Board v. Donnelly Garment Co., 1947, 330 U.S. 219, 234—235, 67 S.Ct. 756, 764, 91 L.Ed. 854. As the managers on the part of the House of Representatives for the Conference Committee reported concerning the Wagner Act, that statute contemplated that there be 'immediately available to the Board an existing court decree to serve as a basis for contempt proceedings,' in the event a renewal of the unfair practice occurs after the enforcement order. H.R.Rep.No.1371, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 5. See also H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 510, on H.R.3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., &. 55; compare H.R.Rep.No.245, on H.R.3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 43, 93. Section 10(e), which 'in effect formulates a famil- iar principle regarding newly discovered evidence,' National...