United Aircraft Corporation v. McCulloch

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
• Writing for the Court: BASTIAN, Senior Circuit , and WRIGHT and LEVENTHAL, Circuit
• Citation: United Aircraft Corporation v. McCulloch, 365 F.2d 960, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 27 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
• Decision Date: 21 July 1966
• Docket Number: No. 20163.,20163.
• Parties: UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Frank W. McCULLOCH, Chairman, et al., members constituting the National Labor Relations Board, et al., Appellees.

365 F.2d 960 (1966)

UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Frank W. McCULLOCH, Chairman, et al., members constituting the National Labor Relations Board, et al., Appellees.

No. 20163.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 16, 1966.

Decided July 21, 1966.

Mr. Joseph C. Wells, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Glen M. Bendixsen, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, and Warren M. Laddon, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for appellee, McCulloch, et al.

Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Plato E. Papps, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees, Local Lodges Nos. 743 and 1746, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO.

Before BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court (1) denying appellant's motion for preliminary injunction to restrain the members of the National Labor Relations Board in their conduct of an unfair labor practice case (which is still pending before the Board), and (2) granting the motion of appellees (Board) for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. The injunction sought the withdrawal of a Board order entered on an interlocutory appeal, overruling the trial examiner's dismissal of certain allegations in the General Counsel's complaint. Relief inter alia was also sought to regulate the manner in which the Board shall dispose of future interlocutory appeals from the examiner's rulings during the remainder of the present hearing.

It seems to us that a mere statement of the relief sought is sufficient to demonstrate want of jurisdiction in the District Court to proceed. Doing so would make the District Court an appellate tribunal over interlocutory rulings of the Board. Congress has directed the route for proceedings such as this, and no detour has been provided.

We think this case is governed by Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938). There the Supreme Court held that a United States District Court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the Board from holding a hearing, and reiterated the following language from its decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 46, 47, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893:

"`The Board must receive evidence and make findings. The findings as to the facts are to be conclusive, but only if supported by evidence. The order of the Board is subject to review by the designated court, and only when sustained by the court may the order be enforced. Upon that review all questions of the jurisdiction of the Board and the regularity of its proceedings, all questions of constitutional right or

...