NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Company, Civ. A. No. 67-260-G.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtGARRITY
Citation270 F. Supp. 280
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 67-260-G.
Decision Date30 June 1967
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff, v. WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY and Robert W. Stoddard as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Wyman-Gordon Company, Defendants.

270 F. Supp. 280

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Plaintiff,
v.
WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY and Robert W. Stoddard as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Wyman-Gordon Company, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 67-260-G.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

June 30, 1967.


270 F. Supp. 281
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
270 F. Supp. 282
Robert Fuchs, Boston, Mass., Dept. of Labor, Bernard M. Dworski, Washington, D. C., N. L. R. B., for plaintiff

Quentin O. Young, Herrick, Smith, Donald, Farley & Ketchum, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

270 F. Supp. 283

OPINION

GARRITY, District Judge.

The plaintiff, National Labor Relations Board ("Board"), seeks enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum directed to the defendant Robert W. Stoddard, as president of the Wyman-Gordon Company ("Company"), or alternatively, a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant Company to comply with the election rule promulgated by the Board on February 4, 1966 in Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB No. 111, requiring an employer to file with the Board's Regional Director, in the Region where the union representation petition is pending, a list of the names and addresses of all employees eligible to vote in the representation election ("Excelsior list"). The jurisdiction of this court is asserted on the basis of §§ 9(c) and 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 159(c) and 161(2), and on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

Since May 16, 1962 the Board has conducted five elections among the defendant Company's employees to determine whether they wished to be represented by a union. None of the following unions that participated in various of the elections was able to gain a majority vote of the employees: the United Automobile Workers of America, AFL-CIO ("Autoworkers"), the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmith, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO ("Boilermakers"), and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO ("Steelworkers").

The last election was held on September 29, 1966 at the petition of the Boilermakers, and with the intervention of the Steelworkers.1 Prior to this election, counsel for the Company notified the Board that the Company refused to consent to an election because under the Board's Consent Election agreements an employer contracts to comply with all Board rules and regulations, and the Company did not intend to comply with the Excelsior rule, which it contended was invalid. Both unions filed timely objections to the election based upon the Company's refusal to comply with the Regional Director's direction to submit an Excelsior list. On October 19, 1966 the Regional Director upheld these objections, set the election aside, and directed that another election be held.

On December 2, 1966 the Regional Director notified the Company that the election was to be held on December 29, 1966 and requested that an Excelsior list be filed no later than December 9, 1966. The Company again failed to file the list and, at the request of the unions, the election was postponed. On December 27, 1966 the Regional Director issued a subpoena duces tecum directing the defendant to provide the Board with the Company's personnel and payroll records or, in lieu thereof, with an Excelsior list. On December 30, 1966 the Company filed a motion to quash the subpoena, which the Board denied on January 10, 1967. Upon the defendant's continued failure and refusal to comply with the subpoena, the Board instituted this action.

The enforceability of the Board's Excelsior rule has been the subject of several district court decisions. The majority, including N. L. R. B. v. Wolverine Industries, E.D.Mich., 1966, 64 LRRM 2060, and N. L. R. B. v. Rohlen, N.D.Ill., 1967, 64 LRRM 2168, have ordered compliance with the Board subpoena. The minority view, denying enforcement of the Board subpoena, is represented by N. L. R. B. v. Hanes Hosiery Division-Hanes Corp., M.D.N.Car., 1966, 63 LRRM 2513, and N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., M.D.Fla., 1966, 64 LRRM 2061. As yet, the question has not been decided by a court of appeals, but appeals are pending from the Hanes and Rohlen decisions and perhaps from others. The major issue presented has been whether an Excelsior list is embraced within the term "evidence" as it is used

270 F. Supp. 284
in §§ 11(1) and 11(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 161 (1) and 161(2)

When the Board seeks enforcement of a subpoena in a district court pursuant to § 11(2), "the scope of permissible judicial inquiry in deciding whether such an application should be granted or denied * * * is extremely limited." N. L. R. B. v. C. C. C. Associates, Inc., 2 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 534, 538. The court has jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena if the Board was acting within its statutory authority in issuing it and if the material sought is not "plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Company, WYMAN-GORDON
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1969
    ...compel the respondent to comply with its order. The District Court held the Board's order valid and directed the respondent to comply. 270 F.Supp. 280 (1967). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed. 397 F.2d 394 (1968). The Court of Appeals thought that the order ......
  • NLRB v. North American Van Lines, Inc., Civ. No. F 85-166.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • June 18, 1985
    ...the privacy interests of its employees. See NLRB v. Q-T Shoe Mfg. Co., 409 F.2d 1247, 1250 (3d Cir.1969); NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 270 F.Supp. 280, 285 (D.Mass.1967), set aside, 397 F.2d 394 (1st Cir.), rev'd, 393 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 303, 21 L.Ed.2d 275 (1968). Assuming that North American ......
  • NLRB v. Delaware Valley Armaments, Inc., No. 18390.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 11, 1970
    ...Court seeking the subpoena's enforcement. The District Court held the Board's order valid and entered an order enforcing the subpoena. 270 F.Supp. 280 (D.C. Mass.1967). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, 397 F.2d 394 (1968), on its holding that the Board's or......
  • NLRB v. Midtown Service Co., No. 393
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 25, 1970
    ...did not compel production of the list by subpoena, as it has done in a number of similar cases. See, e. g., NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 270 F.Supp. 280 (D.Mass.1967). Although the enforceability of such subpoenas was not conclusively established until the Supreme Court's April, 1969 decision ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Company, WYMAN-GORDON
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1969
    ...compel the respondent to comply with its order. The District Court held the Board's order valid and directed the respondent to comply. 270 F.Supp. 280 (1967). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed. 397 F.2d 394 (1968). The Court of Appeals thought that the order ......
  • NLRB v. North American Van Lines, Inc., Civ. No. F 85-166.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • June 18, 1985
    ...the privacy interests of its employees. See NLRB v. Q-T Shoe Mfg. Co., 409 F.2d 1247, 1250 (3d Cir.1969); NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 270 F.Supp. 280, 285 (D.Mass.1967), set aside, 397 F.2d 394 (1st Cir.), rev'd, 393 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 303, 21 L.Ed.2d 275 (1968). Assuming that North American ......
  • NLRB v. Delaware Valley Armaments, Inc., No. 18390.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 11, 1970
    ...Court seeking the subpoena's enforcement. The District Court held the Board's order valid and entered an order enforcing the subpoena. 270 F.Supp. 280 (D.C. Mass.1967). The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, 397 F.2d 394 (1968), on its holding that the Board's or......
  • NLRB v. Midtown Service Co., No. 393
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 25, 1970
    ...did not compel production of the list by subpoena, as it has done in a number of similar cases. See, e. g., NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 270 F.Supp. 280 (D.Mass.1967). Although the enforceability of such subpoenas was not conclusively established until the Supreme Court's April, 1969 decision ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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