NLRB v. Playskool, Inc., 18466
| Decision Date | 25 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 18466,18467.,18466 |
| Citation | 431 F.2d 518 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Applicant-Appellee, v. PLAYSKOOL, INC. and Fred A. Riebe, General Manager, Playskool, Inc., and Henry Anderson and Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and Chicago Joint Board, RWDSU, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Mark L. Schwartzman, Robert C. Claus, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, and KILEY and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.
Applicant, the National Labor Relations Board moves to vacate a stay pending appeal granted by the district court of its order enforcing subpoenas duces tecum served on Fred Riebe, general manager of Playskool, Inc., and Henry Anderson, an official of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. The Board also asks that we summarily affirm the district court's order of enforcement.
In June 1969 the United Furniture Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed a charge with the Board against Playskool, Inc., claiming violations of sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act and alleging that the company recognized the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union as the collective bargaining agent of its employees even though that union was not favored by an uncoerced majority of the employees; that the company unlawfully assisted the union in securing a majority; and that the company entered into a collective bargaining contract under these circumstances. Subsequently, the Furniture Workers filed a similar charge against the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union claiming a violation of section 8(b) (1) (A).
Pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act the Board began an investigation to determine whether a complaint should issue against the company and the charged union. Upon the refusal of both the company and the union to supply information requested, the Board, pursuant to section 11(1) of the Act, issued the subpoena duces tecum which are the subject of these appeals. The subpoena served on the company sought (1) a list of the names and addresses of company employees at its two Chicago plants and Des Plaines warehouse and (2) a list of names and addresses and Internal Revenue Service W-4 forms of all production and maintenance employees employed as of May 2 and May 5, 1969. The subpoena served on the union sought production of all union authorization-to-bargain cards or application-for-membership cards of company employees which were used by the union to establish its claim that it represented a majority of the company's employees for collective bargaining purposes as of May 2, 1969.
Subsequent to the issuance of the subpoenas, both the union and the company, pursuant to section 11(1), filed petitions to revoke the subpoenas claiming that the material sought was irrelevant, and that no copy of the subpoena had been served on the attorney of record of either respondent. The union additionally claimed that the authorization cards were privileged. On January 30, 1970 the Board issued an order denying the petitions to revoke.
On February 20, 1970, pursuant to section 11(2) of the Act, the Board commenced this proceeding in the district court for enforcement of the subpoenas. Thereafter in response to a rule to show cause, the respondents, by answer and oral argument, opposed enforcement on the same grounds urged before the Board. On April 20, 1970 the district court granted the Board's application for enforcement of the subpoenas duces tecum. On April 30, 1970 the respondents filed their notice of appeal and simultaneously asked the district court to stay its order pending decision on appeal to this court. On the same date, the district court granted the requested stay. Upon request the two appeals have been consolidated. To reduce, as far as possible, any further delay in the unfair labor practice proceeding the Board asks this court to vacate the stay and to grant summary affirmance of the district court's order.
Since we affirm the district court's order of enforcement, it is unnecessary to act on the motion to vacate the stay.
Summary disposition of an appeal is permitted by Rule 2, Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc.
...of this type will not invariably be held to be harmless. In this instance, however, we believe the holding in NLRB v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518 (7th Cir.1970), covers the situation. There, respondents' attorneys were also not served with copies of the subpoenas. The court there enforced......
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt., Inc.
...subpoena,] [n]o prejudice has been shown to have resulted because the Board failed to serve counsel with a copy.” N.L.R.B. v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518, 520 (7th Cir.1970). Fresh & Easy argues that Playskool is not persuasive here because, in that case, the respondent filed a timely pet......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Martins Ferry Hosp. Ass'n, s. 79-3408
...signed by employees of a company against which a charge of unfair labor practice is pending before the Board. N.L.R.B. v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518, 519 (7th Cir. 1970). Section 10057, N.L.R.B. Casehandling Manual (Part One), Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, contains this statement of......
-
United States v. Gallagher, 18000.
...shall summarily dispose of that appeal pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. National Labor Relations Board v. Playskool, Inc., 431 F.2d 518 (7th Cir. 1970). In Townsend the district court erroneously applied the standard prescribed in United States v. Dickerson, 4......