Source: http://www.carsandracingstuff.com/library/government/382US205.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:59:29+00:00

Document:
NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1965.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1965.* - NO.
53, 339 F.2D 801, AND NO. 18, REVERSED AND REMANDED.
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
AND THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES SOUGHT REVIEW IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.
AGAINST A COMPANY AND THE BOARD'S GENERAL COUNSEL ISSUED A COMPLAINT.
CROSS-PETITIONED FOR ENFORCEMENT AND THE UNION MOVED TO INTERVENE.
THE MOTION AND AUTHORIZED THE UNION TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF.
TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF THE ORDERS DENYING INTERVENTION.  PP. 208-209.
SUCCESSFUL CHARGED PARTY TO INTERVENE.  P. 211.
RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE APPELLATE REVIEW.  PP. 217-222.
PARTY IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS.  AMALGAMATED UTIL.  WORKERS V.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 219-221.
IMPORTANT ISSUES ON CERTIORARI.  P. 221.
BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT.  P. 222.
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 283 V. SCOFIELD ET AL.
INTERVENE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.
STAYED PENDING THE COMPLETION OF OUR REVIEW.
SECOND CIRCUIT, AND THE BOARD FILED A CROSS-PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT.
BOTH FACETS OF THE INTERVENTION PROBLEM.
IN WHICH THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY CHALLENGES THE BOARD'S DECISION.
A THRESHOLD QUESTION CONCERNS OUR JURISDICTION TO GRANT CERTIORARI.
O.R. CO., 331 U.S. 519.
BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE."
THE COURT AND SERVE UPON ALL PARTIES A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE."
PARTICULAR STATUTORY SCHEME AND AGENCY.
MINIMUM OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS  ..  .""
REVIEW PROCEEDING IS TO AVOID "UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS,"
ZDANOK V. GLIDDEN CO., 327 F.2D 944, 949-950, CERT. DENIED, 377 U.S.
WOULD HAVE UNNECESSARILY POSTPONED RESOLUTION ON THAT IMPORTANT ISSUE.
ADEQUATELY TO PRESENT ALL THE RELEVANT DATA TO THE COURT.
REMEDIAL ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED AGAINST THE CHARGED PARTY.
SHOULD SUFFER BY HIS OWN SUCCESS BEFORE THE AGENCY.
INVOLVING THE SPECIFIED AGENCY AND ITS ORDERS.
WILL BE INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE DISAGREE.
INTEREST" FACTOR.  TO EMPLOY THE RHETORIC OF "PUBLIC INTEREST,"
BOARD'S RULES AND REGULATIONS IS ILLUSTRATIVE.
POTENTIALLY, A BREACH OF THE PARTIES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
AGENCY WHICH WILL DEFINE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SEE SEC. 10(D), 49 STAT.
454, FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364.
TO THE RESPECTIVE COURTS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS SO ORDERED.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT RULE 38(F).
F.2D 45 (C.A. 7TH CIR.).
BOARD, 314 F.2D 761 (C.A. 8TH CIR.); GREAT WESTERN BROADCASTING CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, 310 F.2D 591 (C.A. 9TH CIR.); SELBY-BATTERSBY & CO. V.
190 F.2D 1022 (C.A. 9TH CIR.).
FULLY APPRISED OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE.
BY THESE PRINCIPLES, AN EVEN MORE AGGRAVATED SITUATION COULD RESULT.
IN LIGHT OF OUR STATEMENT IN FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S.
THE LEGALITY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS CONCERNED."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT RULE 19(C).
INCREASE THE TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE.
PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT OF 1950 (THE HOBBS ACT), 64 STAT.
PANEL ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS LAW ISSUED A REPORT, S. DOC. NO.
THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS," P. 17.
ALUMINUM ORE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 131 F.2D 485, 488 (C.A. 7TH CIR.).
258; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194; NATHANSON V.
LABOR BOARD, 344 U.S. 25, 27; SMITH V. EVENING NEWS ASSN., 371 U.S.
PROCESS, 25 IOWA L. REV. 485, 528-531 (1940).
ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT  .. ."
WHERE PERFORCE AN ADEQUATE RECORD HAS BEEN MADE FOR ADJUDICATION.
INVARIABLY APPEAR TO DEFEND ITS ORDER.
"PRIVATE PARTY," 146 N.L.R.B., AT 1585-1587.
OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, CODE, LAW, OR OTHERWISE."
PANEL ON LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS LAW, SUPRA, N. 10, P. 5.
BOARD AND THE CHARGED PARTY WHEN THE CASE IS IN THE APPELLATE COURT.
ALLOWING INTERVENTION AND WE INTIMATE NO VIEW OF THE QUESTION.
COULD LEAD TO DUPLICITY IN APPELLATE REVIEW, "CIRCUIT SHOPPING,"
UNFAIRNESS TO THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY TO THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS, ETC.

References: V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 
 V.

 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 V.