NLRB v. Strickland, Civ. No. 4572.

CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtLowell Goerlich, Washington, D. C., John W. Hart, Union City, Tenn., for defendants
Citation220 F. Supp. 661
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Applicant, v. C. E. STRICKLAND and Billy Sturdivant, Respondents.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 4572.
Decision Date29 May 1962

220 F. Supp. 661

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Applicant,
v.
C. E. STRICKLAND and Billy Sturdivant, Respondents.

Civ. No. 4572.

United States District Court W. D. Tennessee, W. D.

May 29, 1962.


220 F. Supp. 662
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
220 F. Supp. 663
Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Henry L. Jalette, Regional Atty., for NLRB

Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D. C., John W. Hart, Union City, Tenn., for defendants.

BAILEY BROWN, District Judge.

This proceeding involves an application filed under § 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 161 (2), for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) by its General Counsel for an Order requiring Respondents C. E. Strickland and Billy Sturdivant to obey certain subpenas ad testificandum issued by the Board.

The General Counsel of the Board has heretofore issued a § 8(b) (1) (A) unfair labor practice Complaint against and Notice of Hearing to certain labor organizations, of which the Respondents allegedly are members and officials, in connection with allegedly unlawful conduct during a strike at Union City, Tennessee. Prior to the hearing in Union City on April 24, 1962, an attorney for the General Counsel, on April 16, requested in writing that the Regional Director cause to be issued, under § 11(1) of the Act, subpenas ad testificandum, directing the Respondents to appear and testify at the hearing. The Regional Director issued the requested subpenas on April 16 under seal of the Board and proceeded to serve them on the Respondents by registered mail.

The Respondents appeared at the hearing but refused to testify, complaining that, among other things, the subpenas had not been served or properly served upon them. No proof of service of the subpenas was made. Respondents made no attempt to have the subpenas revoked, either by the Trial Examiner or the Board, under the procedures specified in the Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 102.31(b). The Trial Examiner did not purport to rule on the validity of the service of the subpenas. On application by counsel representing the General Counsel at the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a continuance to allow counsel to apply to this Court for an order requiring the Respondents to testify.

At a hearing in this Court held on May 17 the following proof was presented. The Respondent Strickland testified that the signature "C. E. Strickland" which appears on the registered mail receipt was not his signature, and in addition, a comparison with other signatures, admittedly his signatures, confirms this. He further testified that, though the return receipt shows it was delivered on April 17, he found a copy of the subpena on his desk approximately two days before the hearing and that he is an International Representative of the Union but maintains his desk in the building owned and operated by the Local of the Union in Memphis, Tennessee. He further testified that he had no knowledge as to who signed his name to the registered mail receipt nor does he know to whom the letter containing the subpena was in fact delivered.

The Respondent Sturdivant testified that his wife, when calling at their home post office at Kenton, Tennessee, was advised that the post office had a registered mail letter for him, for which she then

220 F. Supp. 664
signed and accepted delivery. This return receipt shows that it was received by Mrs. Sturdivant on April 18, and Respondent Sturdivant testified that he received the subpena the same day from his wife

It is not contended by Respondents that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the persons of the Respondents, and it appears clear that this Court does so have jurisdiction. See: § 11(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 161(2); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. N. L. R. B., 122 F.2d 450, 136 A.L.R. 883 (6th Cir.1941); N. L. R. B. v. Northern Trust Co., 148 F.2d 24, 28 (7th Cir.1945), cert. denied, 326 U.S. 731, 66 S.Ct. 38, 90 L.Ed. 435; and Lewis v. N. L. R. B., 357 U.S. 10, 78 S.Ct. 1029, 2 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1958).

In their answer filed in this Court as well as at the hearing Respondents insisted that this Court could not or at least should not issue an order requiring them to testify for three separate reasons. (1) Their first contention is that the Trial Examiner should have ruled on the question whether the subpenas were properly served, and if he had ruled that the subpenas were validly served, they then could have appealed to the Board the ruling of the Trial Examiner; (2) secondly, Respondents contend that this Court has discretion as to whether it will issue such an order in any event and that it should not so exercise its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • NLRB v. Clark, No. 71-2541.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 4, 1972
    ...exceptional. Section 11(4) should be read broadly to effectuate Congressional labor policies. See NLRB v. Strickland, 1962, W.D.Tenn., 220 F.Supp. 661. The evident Congressional purpose in enacting section 11(4) was to enable the NLRB to serve complaints and other papers by registered mail.......
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 13-00010
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • December 22, 2015
    ...federal regulatory body, and, thus, cannot render moot an administrative investigation by settling a claim. C.f. N.L.R.B. v. Strickland, 220 F. Supp. 661, 664 (W.D. Tenn. 1962) aff'd, 321 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1963) ("Inasmuch as the purpose of the Act is to promote harmony with respect to lab......
  • NLRB v. Strickland, No. 15077.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 13, 1963
    ...U.S. 731, 66 S.Ct. 38, 90 L.Ed. 435; N.L.R.B. v. O'Keefe & Merritt Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 445, 447, C.A. 9th. See: N.L.R.B. v. Strickland, 220 F.Supp. 661. In considering these questions we must keep in mind the admonition of the Supreme Court that "persons summoned as witnesses by competent au......
  • United States v. Wacker, Crim. No. 2509
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • August 28, 1963
    ...revealed that he remembered conversations with his witnesses following the trial and prior thereto and conversations with his attorney, 220 F. Supp. 661 though his memory of the content thereof is not worthy of belief, since it is not now supported by any corroborating (c) Upon filing of th......
4 cases
  • NLRB v. Clark, No. 71-2541.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • October 4, 1972
    ...exceptional. Section 11(4) should be read broadly to effectuate Congressional labor policies. See NLRB v. Strickland, 1962, W.D.Tenn., 220 F.Supp. 661. The evident Congressional purpose in enacting section 11(4) was to enable the NLRB to serve complaints and other papers by registered mail.......
  • Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 13-00010
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • December 22, 2015
    ...federal regulatory body, and, thus, cannot render moot an administrative investigation by settling a claim. C.f. N.L.R.B. v. Strickland, 220 F. Supp. 661, 664 (W.D. Tenn. 1962) aff'd, 321 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1963) ("Inasmuch as the purpose of the Act is to promote harmony with respect to lab......
  • NLRB v. Strickland, No. 15077.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • August 13, 1963
    ...U.S. 731, 66 S.Ct. 38, 90 L.Ed. 435; N.L.R.B. v. O'Keefe & Merritt Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 445, 447, C.A. 9th. See: N.L.R.B. v. Strickland, 220 F.Supp. 661. In considering these questions we must keep in mind the admonition of the Supreme Court that "persons summoned as witnesses by competent au......
  • United States v. Wacker, Crim. No. 2509
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Western District of North Carolina
    • August 28, 1963
    ...revealed that he remembered conversations with his witnesses following the trial and prior thereto and conversations with his attorney, 220 F. Supp. 661 though his memory of the content thereof is not worthy of belief, since it is not now supported by any corroborating (c) Upon filing of th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT