Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board, 7132.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 7132.,7132. |
| Citation | 132 F.2d 801 |
| 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.
Robert B. Watts, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.
The complexities of the case have so increased since the entry of the final decree, that we now have before us, for disposition, the following motions and petitions:
1. Petition of the Labor Board for "Instructions as to Manner of Distribution of Back Pay."
2. Petition of Stewart Die Casting Corporation with "Respect to Claim of Lien."
3. Motion of Thomas Owens, attorney for certain employees, to vacate Order of October 20, 1942, denying his prior petition of October 7, and asking leave to Employees to Intervene.
4. Amendment to motion described above as "3".
5. Special Appearance by the law firm of Owens & Owens to Dismiss Petition of Labor Board (item "1" above) for instructions.
6. Special Appearance by law firm of Owens & Owens to Dismiss Petition of Stewart Die Casting Corporation (item "2" above).
7. Motion and Answer to Petition for Instructions (item "1" above) filed by employees of the Company, by firm of Owens & Owens.
8. Relief sought by employer against attorney's lien.
The original decree of this court, ordering enforcement of the Board's order, was entered on October 29, 1940. Thereafter the Board applied for, and was granted, a rule against the Company, to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt. The Board and Company thereafter composed their disputes as to amounts due the discharged employees, and entered into a "compliance stipulation," whereby the Company paid to the Board the sum of $300,000, to cover its entire back pay liability to the employees.
Upon such payment, and upon consent of the Board, we entered an order, on October 20, wherein the contempt order was discharged and the petition of Thomas Owens, as agent of the employees, to restrain the "Board from disbursing the $300,000" etc., was denied.
The heart of the various controversies is traceable to the contention of the employees and their attorneys that the Board erred in accepting $300,000 as a lump settlement of the employees' right to back pay, as decreed in our original order of enforcement. In other words, so it is asserted, the employees are owed a much larger sum, and the Board had no right or authority to accept less than the full amount due the employees upon our order. The aggrieved employees contend that they have a right to intervene and be heard on their contention that they are being deprived, by virtue of the lump sum settlement, of amounts up to 14% of their correct back wage claims.
An additional controversy concerns the duty of the Board to honor the attorneys' claim of 25% of the amount of the employees' recovery, under their retainer contracts with the employees, of which contracts the Board (and the Company) had full cognizance and for which a lien has been filed with, and asserted against, the employer.
While not unsympathetic generally to the employees' argument that they may not be deprived of part of their back pay without a hearing, we are compelled, under the statutory prescribed procedure, to hold that the Board is the duly specified and exclusively named agency to speak for and protect the employees in these proceedings.
The Court, in the Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co. case, 309 U.S. 261, 60 S.Ct. 561, 563, 84 L.Ed. 738, interpreted the legislative intent in creating the Board, to have been that of guardian, — and sole guardian, of the rights of the employee, who is not, himself, entitled to appear as a party, or by his private attorney, to establish and protect his rights. The Court said:
The statute, section 10(a), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(a) provides:
Our jurisdiction is clearly limited. It may be invoked by an employee only when he brings his case within Section 10 (f) of the Act.
The Board, upon issuance of an order based on a complaint, answer, testimony, and findings, may invoke the jurisdiction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,283 v. Scofield International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 133, Uaw v. Fafnir Bearing Co
...Contra, National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Clerks Assn., 243 F.2d 777, 783 (C.A.9th Cir.); Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 132 F.2d 801 (C.A.7th Cir.); Aluminum Ore Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 131 F.2d 485, 488, 147 A.L.R. 1 (C.A.7th 12 Cf. Hart......
-
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd. v. Yellow Cab & Bus Co.
... ... D. & C. 600 Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Yellow Cab & Bus Company No. 52Common Pleas ... the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, ch. 372, 49 ... 342 Pa. 170; East & West Coast Service Corp. v ... Papahagis, 340 Pa. 575; Lewis v. Beatty, ... N.Y. 345, 2 N.Y.S. (2d) 541. See also Stewart Die Casting ... Corp. v. National Labor ... 287 N.Y. 668, 25 N.Y.S. (2d) 473; State ex rel. Brokaw et ... al. v. Board of Education of City ... ...
-
FAFNIR BEARING COMPANY v. NLRB
...been cited to us have ruled against intervention. See Aluminum Ore Co. v. NLRB, 131 F.2d 485, 488 (7 Cir. 1942); Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. NLRB, 132 F.2d 801 (7 Cir. 1942); Haleston Drug Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 190 F.2d 1022 (9 Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 815, 72 S.Ct. 29, 96 L.Ed. ......
-
Albrecht v. National Labor Relations Board, 10012.
...with the decisions of this court, in Blankenship et al. v. Kurfman et al., 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 450, 454, and Stewart Die Casting Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 7 Cir., 132 F.2d 801, to the effect that the Act does not create, for employees, rights which are enforceable independently of Board action, for he......