Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. National Labor R. Board
Decision Date | 17 August 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 7132.,7132. |
Citation | 129 F.2d 481 |
Parties | STEWART DIE CASTING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Silas H. Strawn, Frank H. Towner, and Thomas S. Tyler, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Thomas L. Owens, of Chicago, Ill. for Local 298, United Automobile Workers of America, intervenor.
A. Norman Somers and Robert B. Watts, both of Washington, D.C., I. S. Dorfman, of Chicago, Ill., and Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel., of Washington, D. C., for respondent N. R. L. B.
Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
This is a labor proceeding, wherein Local No. 298, U.A.W.A. moves (1) for leave to intervene, and (2a) for an order modifying our decree of October 18, 1940, of enforcement of the Labor Board's order against the Stewart Die Casting Corporation, or (2b) in the alternative, for an interpretation of our said order.
The aim of the local is to secure mandatory recognition as the employees' bargaining representative without the holding of the election, which was made a prerequisite of such recognition in our order.
Aside from the issue of the Union's right to intervention, we have the narrow issue as to whether we may modify our decree of enforcement after the term at which it was entered, has expired. The National Labor Relations Board expressly takes no position on this matter.1 The Company opposes any change in our order on the grounds (1) that the proviso in question was suggested as an amendment to the form of order submitted to it by the Board, and the Board acceded to the suggested amendment; (2) the Union is, in effect, seeking an enforcement of the order, which it has no standing in court to demand, under the decision of the Supreme court in Amalgamated Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261, 60 S. Ct. 561, 84 L.Ed. 738.
More specifically, the Local asks us to delete from paragraph 2 (g) of our order of October 18, 1940, the proviso herewith quoted and italicized:
In the alternative, the Union prays: "that this Court interpret said decree of October 18, 1940, in the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to the end that the Petitioner, Stewart Die Casting Corporation, will be required to bargain collectively with said Local 298 as the exclusive representative of Petitioner's employees in the appropriate unit, and that said Stewart Die Casting Corporation be obligated to bargain collectively with said Local 298, without waiting for an election as provided in said Paragraph 2 (g) of the said decree of this court."
Our opinion on the merits (on the petition by the Company for review, and on the request by the Board for an order of enforcement) was announced July 3, 1940 (114 F.2d 849) at our October, 1939, Term (April, 1940, Session). The Board submitted a draft order of enforcement, to which the Company filed objections and requested a modification. The Board, on August 2, 1940, answered the Company's proposed amendment and stated "the Board consents to the modification of paragraph 2 (g) of the proposed decree as suggested * * *." Our order was issued October 18, 1940, which was during the October, 1940, Term of court. The Company applied for certiorari, which was denied January 13, 1941. Our order of enforcement of October 18, 1940, was not stayed pending the petition for certiorari.
Controversy was and is over the requirement of an election which the Board has failed to call, although on December 9, 1941, the Union petitioned the Board for an election. We therefore have a situation where (a) the local union demands that it be recognized as the bargaining agent; (b) the employer insists that the union be first designated by the employees at an election; (c) the Board declines to call an election.
The employer asserts that the reason back of the Board's action and the Union's effort to modify the order so as to avoid the necessity of an election, is the Union's inability to show a majority or a plurality of employees who are willing to select the Union as their agent.
The Union sought leave to intervene, at the hearing on the merits, but such leave was not granted, although it was permitted to file a brief, which it did.
The Union argues that enforcement orders should not be conditioned upon the holding of an election to determine the Union's status.2 The Board supports this view and asserts the broad position, "that the Board may disregard any change of representative made while unfair labor practices, including refusals to bargain, remain unremedied for the reason that, in such circumstances, the employees might still be subject to improper restraints and not have the complete freedom of choice which the Act contemplates."
Assuming for the purpose of the argument the soundness of this view, and assuming that the proviso in paragraph 2 (g) was unauthorized and improper, have we the power to wipe out the proviso, and if we have, should it be exercised? These are the questions before us.
In determining what is our authority in this and like cases, which are arising constantly now, we are first confronted by the rule of law that a court has no jurisdiction to modify its final order after the expiration of the term at which it was entered.3 The Supreme and inferior Federal courts have so held countless times.
The rigidity of this rule has now been lessened, if not wiped out, so far as the District Courts are concerned, by Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which provides:
Rule 60 provides:
But these rules, whatever their scope, have no application to the Circuit Court of Appeals (Nachod et al. v. Engineering Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594, Rule 6 (c) does not apply to C.C.A.), and therefore the loss of jurisdiction with the ending of the term at which the order was entered, still applies unchanged to this court's judgments and decrees.
To support its position, the Union relies on Solvay Process Co. v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 122 F.2d 993. We believe that case differs from the instant one in that the application for modification must there have been made during the same term as the original decree. We reach this conclusion from the fact that the decree sought to be modified was entered, March 27, 1941, and the opinion granting modification was announced October 7, 1941. The application was made at least some time before the announcement of the opinion. The Fifth Circuit's Rules, Rule 3, provides that its annual term at New Orleans, Louisiana, should begin on the third Monday in November, which is later than the modification of the opinion. From this, we conclude that the modification occurred at the same term as that at which the original decree was entered.
The Union also cites this court's per curiam opinion in McQuay-Norris Co. v. N.L.R.B. 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 1009, wherein we held the court had power to modify a decree theretofore entered by it in a labor case. In that case, however, as in the Solvay case, the modification was made in the same term as that of the entry of the original decree.
We are aided in the decision of this case by the very apt and enlightening opinion of the Court in United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 52 S.Ct. 460, 462, 76 L.Ed. 999. It involved a consent decree of injunction in a suit by the United States under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U. S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note, by which decree a monopolistic combination of meat packers was dissolved, and the individual units were enjoined from trading in certain foodstuffs outside the meat industry. The packers alleged that changed conditions in the food industry warranted a modification of the decree.
The Court drew the very logical distinction between injunctions, executory in nature, which might, under limited conditions, be modified, and injunctions predicated upon rights fully accrued which could not be subsequently changed.
We quote from this opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. CERTAIN PROPERTY, ETC.
... ... Fankuchen, 546 Pearl Street Corp., Pearl Street Restaurant, Inc., Boylan's Tavern, ... ...
-
Hines v. Royal Indemnity Company
...of Appeals. Rule 1, Rules of Civil Procedure; Nachod v. Engineering & Research Corp., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 594; Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 481, 484. The Court of Appeals, under its authority to make its own rules, has in several circuits adopted the Rules of Civi......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Handy Hardware Wholesale, Inc.
...F.2d 849, 857 (7th Cir. 1940), cert. denied, 312 U.S. 680, 61 S.Ct. 449, 85 L.Ed. 1119 (1941), petition for order modifying denied, 129 F.2d 481 (1942). As the alleged violation in the present case was a failure to bargain, the continuing failure past the date of the complaint was relevant ......
-
National Labor Rel. Bd. v. RETAIL CLERKS INTER. ASS'N
...Court of an adverse decision, from which decision the Board did not take an appeal. Safeway cites Stewart Die Casting Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 1942, 7 Cir., 129 F.2d 481, to sustain its argument that it has standing to seek injunctive relief. While that case may provid......
-
Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Appellate Arena: Judicial Notice and the Potential of the Legislative Fact Remand
...F.2d 111, (6th Cir. 1958); Nachod v. Engineering and Research Corp., 108 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1939); Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 129 F.2d 481, 484 (7th Cir. 80. Benjamin, supra note 66, at 360 (citing Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 233 (1991) (quoting Miller v. Fento......