Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. NLRB, 20738.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 20738.,20738. |
| Parties | SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and Ogden W. Fields, Executive Secretary of the National Labor Relations Board, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Lederer, Fox & Grove, Herbert M. Berman, Lawrence M. Cohen, Chicago, Ill., Joseph F. Cook, Akron, Ohio, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Avern Cohn, Detroit, Mich., for appellant; Gerard C. Smetana, Chicago, Ill., Sears, Roebuck & Company, Roy E. Browne, Akron, Ohio, of counsel.
Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Chief of Special Litigation, Charles N. Steele, Michael F. Rosenblum, Attys., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Jerome H. Brooks, Regional Director, N. L. R. B., Seventh Region, Detroit, Mich., for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.
This case arises out of a collateral issue to an unfair labor practice proceeding presently in progress before the National Labor Relations Board. Sears filed certain demands for information with the defendants on June 23 and June 26, 1970, purportedly under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act, 81 Stat. 54, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552. While the defendants provided plaintiff with some of the requested information, most of its demands were rejected on the grounds that the information was either not covered by the Act or was expressly excluded. Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan essentially seeking judicial review of this decision. The district court concluded that Sections 10(e) and 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S. C.A. § 160, provided the sole method of review of Board decisions, including intermediate decisions as to discovery, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has appealed, and was denied a temporary injunction pending appeal by the district court. It has now requested a stay of the district court's order pending appeal, and subsequently filed a motion for expediting the briefing schedule. The questions presented for decision, both on the merits of this appeal and on the irreparable injury necessary to support the requested stay order, are extensively covered in the memoranda of the parties. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that plaintiff's motion for stay and motion for an expedited briefing schedule must be denied. We further conclude that, the questions on the merits of the appeal having been fully treated, we can proceed to the disposition of this case without further assistance from the parties and that the questions presented for appeal are so unsubstantial and entirely without merit as to require us to affirm the judgment of the District Court without further argument. Rules 8 and 9, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The district court was correct in concluding that it was without jurisdiction. The prayer for relief contained in plaintiff's complaint requested the court to enjoin further proceedings of the National Labor Relations Board pending final decision on its complaint and sought a declaratory judgment finding its right to review under 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 prejudiced because of the information withheld. Essentially, the form of relief plaintiff seeks would result in early judicial review of a Board decision on permissible discovery, not an order to produce records. Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction for such an action is granted to the district courts by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(a) (3), which grants "* * * jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records * * *." Even assuming the dubious proposition that Congress intended to create an exception to its long-standing policy against enjoining the Board, plaintiff seeks neither an injunction nor an order of the type described above. We therefore conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, since it does not have the power to enjoin or to review decisions of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Company, Inc 8212 822
...93 (1972). Interference with the agency proceeding opens the way to the use of the FOIA as a tool of discovery, see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRB, 433 F.2d 210, 211 (CA6 1970), over and beyond that provided by the regulations issued by the Renegotiation Board for its proceedings. See 32 CFR ......
-
Bannercraft Clothing Company v. Renegotiation Board
...contends, if the statute were interpreted to authorize equitable intervention on the basis of specialized need. Cf. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRB, 6 Cir., 433 F.2d 210, 211 But although it is undeniably true that Congress was principally interested in opening administrative processes to the ......
-
Honicker v. Hendrie
...to issue writs once its jurisdiction has been established, and does not of itself confer jurisdiction. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. NLRB, 433 F.2d 210 (6th Cir. 1970); Thompson Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 133 F.2d 637 (6th Cir. 1943). None of the acts of which plaintiff complains were p......
-
Cessna Aircraft Company v. NLRB
...§ 160(e) and (f), providing for review in the Court of Appeals. In support of this position, defendants cite Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. N.L.R.B. (6 Cir. 1970) 433 F.2d 210, 211; National Labor Relations Board v. Gala-Mo Arts (8 Cir. 1956) 232 F.2d 102, 106; Polymers, Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (2nd Cir.......