National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co., 8712.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 8712.,8712. |
| Citation | 98 F.2d 870 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BELL OIL & GAS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and David McCalmont, Jr., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
C. J. Brannan and O. R. Tipps, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for respondent.
Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
We held in this case that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity were not abolished by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. We adhere to this ruling, notwithstanding the provision that, in proceedings before the Board, such rules shall not be controlling. The Board is not a court, though it is quasi-judicial in character. It is a fact-finding tribunal with inquisitorial powers in labor controversies, similar to those of a grand jury in criminal cases. In the discretion of the agency conducting the hearing, any person may intervene and present testimony. The fact that incompetent evidence is heard does not invalidate an order of the Board, provided the findings upon which the order is based are supported by competent, relevant, and material evidence.
The statute says that the findings shall be conclusive if supported by evidence, but this is in paragraph (e), section 10, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e), which is dealing with the controversy after it has reached the judicial stage. The word "evidence" in this connection refers to the means by which any alleged matter of fact is established or disproved in a court of justice. That the evidence must be material is indicated in the very next sentence; that it must also be competent and relevant is the general rule which remains in effect in the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary. There is nothing in the act to indicate that the conclusion of the Board as to the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case should be conclusive.
It is elementary that questions respecting the competency and admissibility of evidence are entirely distinct from those which relate to its effect or sufficiency; the former being exclusively for the court, the latter exclusively for the jury. If the Board should base its findings solely upon evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search, the order resting thereon would be invalid, because such evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
...Co., 4 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d 951; National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 406, rehearing denied 5 Cir., 1938, 98 F.2d 870; Cupples Co. Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, supra; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., ......
-
Miller v. Toler
...289 (1979) (proceedings before the public utilities commission to terminate phone service because of illegal use); NLRB v. Bell Oil & Gas Co., 98 F.2d 870 (5th Cir.1938) (labor controversies); Sullivan v. District Ct. of Hampshire, 384 Mass. 736, 429 N.E.2d 335 (1981) (hearings to terminate......
-
Writers' Guild of America West, Inc. v. Superior Court
...discretion to permit parties other than the respondent to intervene. (29 U.S.C. § 160, subd. (b); National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co. (5th Cir. 1938) 98 F.2d 870, 871.)2 Conceivably, the complaint states a cause of action for recovery of the $179 fine imposed on one of the ......
-
Donnelly Garment Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd.
...that there is a distinction between the admissibility of evidence and its weight or sufficiency. National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Oil & Gas Co., 5 Cir., 98 F. 2d 870, 871. Surely if the testimony of an employee which tends to prove that an employer interfered with or supported the org......