National Labor Relations Board v. NORTHERN TR. CO.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 44 F 12.,44 F 12. |
| Citation | 56 F. Supp. 335 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NORTHERN TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Jack G. Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., for National Labor Relations Board.
Jacobson, Nierman & Silbert and Scott, MacLeish & Falk, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.
The National Labor Relations Board has applied to this court for an order requiring respondent Northern Trust Company, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, to appear before a trial Examiner of the Board and produce certain books and records described in a certain subpoena duces tecum theretofore issued by the Board and served upon said respondent and requiring the other respondents, officers of the Northern Trust Company to appear and testify in response to such subpoena.
From the application of the Board it appears that on October 19, 1943, the Protective Service Employees of Chicago Local No. 240, Building Service Employees' International Union A. F. L., hereinafter referred to as the Union, filed its petition with the Board charging the Northern Trust Company with refusal to recognize the Union as representative of "all employees working as armed guards except as supervisors and other employees," alleging that the question concerning representation is a question affecting commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and requesting the Board pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act to investigate such controversy and certify to the parties the name or names of the representatives that have been designated or selected by said employees.
It was further alleged in the application of the Board that the documents mentioned in the subpoena are material and necessary to the Board's investigation in that they bear upon the question whether or not the operations of the Bank affect interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and upon the question of what constitutes the appropriate bargaining unit and whether the Union has a sufficient interest among the employees to warrant the Board in holding an election.
In their answer respondents admit the refusal of the Bank and its officers to obey the subpoena, but assert that neither the bank nor the employees mentioned in the petition filed with the National Labor Relations Board are in any way engaged in commerce as defined in the National Labor Relations Act and the employees do not have any duties or perform any acts which in any way affect such commerce; that the Bank is organized as a banking institution under the laws of the State of Illinois and is a stockholder in the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Illinois, is a duly qualified member of the Federal Reserve System and an insured bank under the permanent plan for the insurance of deposits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as provided by the Act of Congress; that the National Banking Act provides that no bank subject to the Act shall be subject to any visitorial powers other than such as are authorized by law or vested in the Courts of Justice or such as shall be or shall have been exercised or directed by Congress or by either house thereof or by any committee of Congress duly authorized.
The answer further sets up the provisions of the Act creating the Federal Reserve System concerning examinations to be made of a member bank together with the provisions of the Banking Act of the State of Illinois, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, c. 16½, § 1 et seq., that banks organized under it shall not be subject to any other visitorial powers than such as are authorized by the Act or such as are vested by the law in the several courts of law and chancery.
In short, it is the position of respondents, first, that the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to the Bank because banking in its nature cannot constitute or affect interstate commerce, second, if it should be held that banking might conceivably affect such commerce it does not necessarily do so, and that the Board is not entitled to an order compelling compliance unless it is shown that the business of respondent's bank affects such commerce and that such showing has not been made here, and, third, that banks are not subject to examination or the exercise of visitorial powers other than those provided for in the National and State laws concerning the organization and control of banking corporations.
First: It is contended by respondents that the business of a bank is of such a nature that it does not and cannot constitute interstate commerce nor affect such commerce and therefore a bank and its employees are not subject to the National Labor Relations Act. I cannot agree. The reasoning of the court in Polish National Alliance v. National Labor Relations Board, 64 S.Ct. 1196, brings the ordinary business of a bank, other perhaps than a very small local bank, within the meaning of the term interstate commerce. See also National Labor Relations Board v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass'n, 9 Cir., 130 F.2d 624. It cannot be said as a matter of law that no bank can be engaged in such commerce.
Second: May the Board, in the absence of any showing that the Bank or its employees are engaged in any activities affecting interstate commerce, require the Bank to produce its records for the inspection of the Board in an investigation carried on by it under the provisions of section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act or may its officers be compelled to testify in such an investigation?
The National Labor Relations Act, U.S. C.A. Title 29, Sec. 151 et seq. provides (Sec. 8) that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer engaged in interstate commerce to refuse to bargain collectively with representatives of his employees subject to the Act. Section 9(c) authorizes the Board, whenever a question affecting commerce arises concerning the representation of employees, to investigate such controversy and certify to the parties in writing the name or names of the representatives that have been designated or selected. In any such investigation the Board is required to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice and may take a secret ballot of employees or utilize any other suitable method to ascertain such representative. By Section 11 of the Act it is provided that any member of the Board shall have power to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any matter under investigation or in question before the Board and, in case of refusal to obey a subpoena, any District Court of the United States within the jurisdiction in which the inquiry is carried on, upon application by the Board, shall have jurisdiction to compel the person to obey the subpoena.
In Myers v. Bethlehem Ship Building Corporation, 303 U.S. 41, 58...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Company
...not discussed specifically whether the material was evidence, they have impliedly found that it was, e. g., N. L. R. B. v. Northern Trust Co., N.D.Ill., 1944, 56 F.Supp. 335, 336, aff'd 7 Cir. 1945, 148 F.2d 24; N. L. R. B. v. Duval Jewelry Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 672, 673. In Cud......
-
NLRB v. British Auto Parts, Inc.
...well as at the hearing stage of its proceedings. Cudahy Packing Co. v. NLRB, 117 F.2d 692, 693 (10th Cir. 1941); NLRB v. Northern Trust Co., 56 F. Supp. 335 (N.D. Ill., 1944), aff'd, 148 F. 2d 24 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 731, 66 S.Ct. 38, 90 L.Ed. 435 (1945). The foregoing cases m......