NLRB v. United Aircraft Corporation
| Decision Date | 15 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9070. |
| Citation | 200 F. Supp. 48 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Applicant, v. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION AND HAMILTON STANDARD DIVISION) et al., Respondents. |
Allan I. Mendelsohn, Harold M. Kowal, Washington, D. C., Norman Zankel, Boston, Mass., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Charles A. Mahan, East Hartford, Conn., Joseph C. Wells, Washington, D. C., for respondents.
This case is before the court on application by the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., for an order requiring United Aircraft Corporation (Pratt & Whitney Division and Hamilton Standard Division), a Delaware corporation having an office and transacting business within the jurisdiction of this court, to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum of the National Labor Relations Board issued in the course of an investigation, instituted to ascertain whether the corporation had violated Sections 8(a) (1), (3) and (5) of the Act.
The relevant facts are as follows: In June of 1960, Lodges 1746 and 743 of the International Association of Machinists commenced a strike against the Respondent. The strike was ultimately terminated by a settlement agreement which provided the following method for recall of strikers: (1) If the job held prior to the strike was available, the striker would be returned to the job. (2) If such job was not available, the strikers were to be recalled to other available jobs in their occupational groups and seniority areas in accordance with a contract then in force between the Union and the Respondent. (3) Strikers for whom no jobs were available were to be placed on a "Preferred Hiring List" and were to be recalled to job openings in their occupational groups and seniority areas which might develop prior to January 1, 1961.
Beginning on November 21, 1960 and continuing through September 1961, the Union and various individual employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that because of their membership in the Union the Respondent had discriminated against them by withholding employment and/or by failing to reinstate various employees to their rightful jobs; that Respondent had caused a loss of pay and reinstatement rights by working excessive hours of overtime in various departments; that various individuals were recalled to less desirable jobs than those to which they were entitled and that there had been, in general, discriminatory treatment directed against specific individuals in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. The Union represents bargaining units comprising about 22,500 of the Respondent's employees and the charges relate to more than 700 individual employees.
An investigation of the charges was undertaken by the Regional Office of the Board and certain information was requested from the Respondent for the purpose of determining whether a complaint should issue on the charges. Respondent refused to furnish the information, whereupon the subpoenas involved here were issued. Respondent filed with the Board a motion to revoke the subpoenas; the Board denied the motion, together with Respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration. Respondent still refuses to furnish the information in the areas and form requested by the Board.
The subpoenas demand the following documents, (a) the employment application of each employee hired into the bargaining units of the Union between January 1, 1961 and May 1, 1961; (b) records indicating the occupational code, seniority area, department number, and date of hire for each employee hired into the bargaining unit during the four month period, if such information is not already indicated on the employment application; (c) lists indicating, as to each employee hired into the bargaining unit during this period, whether or not he was a "direct factory employee"; (d) documents indicating the name, occupational code, seniority area and department number of each employee who registered for reinstatement after the strike and who had not been recalled to active employment as of December 31, 1960; (e) documents indicating the specific occupational classifications which comprise the group of "direct factory employees"; (f) documents indicating which departments by name or number that performed overtime work during the January to May period.
Respondent bases his refusal to comply with the subpoenas on two main grounds, (1) that the records and other information sought in the subpoenas are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues under investigation and the proceeding before the Board and (2) that the subpoenas are unlawful and improper.
The National Labor Relations Act confers broad powers of investigation on the Board. They have the power to subpoena any evidence "that relates to any matter under investigation or in question".1 Congress, however, did not see fit to empower the Board with the power to commit for contempt and provided instead that the Board may apply to the appropriate District court for an order enforceable by contempt proceedings.2 A proceeding for judicial enforcement of a subpoena involves more than an automatic issuance of the order and it has been held by the Supreme Court that such a proceeding is a "case" or "controversy."3
This court may, as respondent, contends consider the breadth of the subpoena and the relevancy of the matter sought by it.4 Respondent, also, contends that the Board by seeking the requested information is engaged in a "vast fishing expedition." While it is true that "fishing expeditions into private papers on the possibility that they may disclose evidence of crime" are strongly condemned in the older cases,5 the Supreme Court in more recent cases has modified its position.6
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin
...672, 672-673; Jackson Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (5th Cir. 1953), 204 F.2d 842, 844; N. L. R. B. v. United Aircraft Corporation (D.Conn.1961), 200 F.Supp. 48, 50-51.) However, the proceeding at bench was not one to judicially enforce a subpoena under section 1151(b). It i......
-
NLRB v. Friedman
...be more care fully guarded. See also N. L. R. B. v. Anchor Rome Mills, Inc., 197 F.2d 447 (5 Cir. 1952); N. L. R. B. v. United Aircraft Corporation, 200 F.Supp. 48, 50 (D.C.Conn.1961); Adams v. Federal Trade Commission, 296 F.2d 861, 866 (8 Cir. 1961). Mr. Justice Jackson in the Morton Salt......
-
N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp.
...has such a large number of employees, that it is sufficiently equipped to handle the records of its employees. NLRB v. United Aircraft Corp., 200 F.Supp. 48, 51 (D.Conn.1961), aff'd mem., 300 F.2d 442 (2d Cir.1962). Given the nature of its case, the Board has done all that it reasonably cou......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Frederick Cowan & Co., Inc.
...Corp., 422 F.2d 1371, 1375 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 958, 90 S.Ct. 2170, 26 L.Ed.2d 542 (1970); NLRB v. United Aircraft Corp., 200 F.Supp. 48, 50-51 (D.Conn.1961), aff'd on opinion below, 300 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1962) (Per curiam The Company, which did not file a brief here but was re......