Source: http://openjurist.org/525/f2d/422/national-labor-relations-board-v-stark
Timestamp: 2017-02-21 09:50:30
Document Index: 328286857

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 1839', '§ 1841', '§ 102', '§ 8', '§ 102', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 14']

525 F2d 422 National Labor Relations Board v. Stark | OpenJurist
525 F. 2d 422 - National Labor Relations Board v. Stark HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 525 F.2d.
525 F2d 422 National Labor Relations Board v. Stark 525 F.2d 422
90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3076, 77 Lab.Cas. P 11,144,2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 524
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.Fred STARK et al., Respondents.
No. 22, Docket 74--2658.
Argued Sept. 17, 1975.Decided Nov. 5, 1975.Certiorari Denied March 22, 1976.See 96 S.Ct. 1463.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of an order against employers dated September 6, 1974, 213 NLRB No. 38. The employers are Fred Stark (a family partnership composed of Fred Stark, Harold Stark and Rita Stark) and two affiliated corporations, Jamaica 201 St. Corp., Inc. and Jamaica 202 St. Corp., Inc., all engaged in the ownership and rental of commercial and residential buildings and properties. We shall refer to all three as 'respondent.' The order found that respondent had violated § 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by the discriminatory discharge of, and refusal to reinstate, six employees, Charles Thompson, Roger Evans, Wayne Huff, Jeffrey Maksymchak, Felipe Ortiz and George Peters, and had violated § 8(a)(1) by the coercive interrogation and warning of Peters and another employee, Kenroy Bishop, and by offering to reinstate Maksymchak if he left his union. The order contained the usual provisions for ceasing and desisting and notice posting, and for the providing of reinstatement and back pay to the six discharged employees.
Even before the tightening effected by the Taft-Hartley Act, the Board had received two judicial instructions with respect to application of 'the rule.' In N.L.R.B. v. Quality & Service Laundry, Inc., 131 F.2d 182, 183 (4 Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 775, 63 S.Ct. 831, 87 L.Ed. 1144 (1943), a distinguished panel (Parker, Soper and Dobie, C. JJ.) advised, in a per curiam opinion, that in courts of law the issue whether or not witnesses are to be separated 'is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court' and that the same principle 'should be applied to hearings before the Board or its examiners.' Shortly thereafter, Judge Florence Allen, writing in N.L.R.B. v. Burke Mach. Tool Co., 133 F.2d 618, 621 (6 Cir. 1943), put the matter more positively:
In light of this substantial body of precedent, the ALJ was fully justified in saying that '(t)he Board's uniform practice has been not to apply the rule to (alleged discriminatees).' Since he clearly and correctly thought he had no discretion under Board practice, it is impossible to sustain the first position taken by Board counsel, namely, that the ALJ was exercising discretion and did not abuse it. Although the Board is on considerably stronger ground in its alternative argument that its flat rule prohibiting the sequestration of alleged discriminatees in § 8(a)(3) proceedings is sustainable, this is not ultimately persuasive.
Despite Wigmore's position that sequestration should be demandable as of right when sought in good faith, 6 Evidence § 1839 (3d ed. 1940), the principle in the federal courts prior to enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 88 Stat. 1926, effective July 1, 1975, was that it was grantable in the discretion of the trial judge. See, e.g., Kaufman v. United States, 163 F.2d 404, 408 (6 Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 333 U.S. 857, 68 S.Ct. 726, 92 L.Ed. 1137 (1948); United States v. Postma, 242 F.2d 488, 494 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 922, 77 S.Ct. 1380, 1 L.Ed.2d 1436 (1957); Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192, 198 (9 Cir. 1962); Taylor v. United States, 388 F.2d 786, 788 (9 Cir. 1967). The question of the excludability of 'parties' had presented a problem, with most courts and statutes tending against exclusion but with some going the other way. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1841 at 364--65 (3d ed. 1940) and 1972 Pocket Supplement at 161 notes 9 and 10. Now Rule 615 has adopted Wigmore's principle of mandatory exclusion:
While, as in this case, discriminatees are not usually 'parties' within NLRB Rules and Regulations, 29 CFR § 102.8 (1974),6 since they leave the filing of a charge to their union, there is nothing to prevent their joining in such a charge and we agree with the Board that decision with respect to sequestration should not turn on whether they have done so in a particular case. On the other hand, despite the recognition accorded to charging parties in International Union, United Automobile, etc., Workers, etc. v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205, 217--21, 86 S.Ct. 373, 15 L.Ed.2d 272 (1965), an unfair labor practice proceeding under § 8(a)(3) is not the exact equivalent of a private suit. The complaint is issued by the Board acting through the regional director, 29 C.F.R. § 102.15 (1974), and when he has done so 'and the proceeding reaches the adjudicative stage, the course the hearing will take is in the agency's control.' 382 U.S. at 219, 86 S.Ct. at 382. In this case, as often happens, no lawyer appeared for the charging party and the proceeding was conducted solely by counsel for the General Counsel on the one hand and counsel for the respondent on the other. Under such circumstances one of the main reasons claimed for the 'party' exception, the need for his presence to guide his own attorney, has diminished force. The interest of counsel for the General Counsel, like that of an Assistant United States Attorney, is--or should be--not that he 'shall win a case, but that justice shall be done,' Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 655 (1935). Beyond that, the judicial decisions that developed the 'party' exception scarcely took into account the situation that frequently occurs in § 8(a)(3) proceedings where several employees may be testifying to a single event on one side, whereas the other side is presented by a single witness or, if more than one, by officials or supervisory employees who are not 'parties' and can thus be put under 'the rule.' To the contrary, it seems that in many jurisdictions which generally refused to compel sequestration of 'parties,' the term was given a restricted scope when the presence of the witness in question was not necessary for the effective advocacy of the cause. This was notably true in First Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Lartigue, 233 Ala. 670, 173 So. 21 (1937) (exclusion of potential distributees of an estate remains a matter for trial court's discretion, since administrators are in charge of the suit, and, although the distributees 'are said to be the parties in real interest,' there was 'no showing . . . of any special need of such persons to assist in the trial'). See also Kentucky Union Lumber Co. v. Abney, 17 Ky.L.Rep. 401, 31 S.W. 279 (1895) (exclusion of 'chief officer of the defendant corporation in said county (where suit tried)' within discretion of trial judge, since not a 'party,' 'nor does it appear . . . that his presence was of vital importance to a fair trial of the action'); compare Lenoir Car Co. v. Smith, 100 Tenn. 127, 42 S.W. 879 (1897) (officer of a corporation 'whose presence during the trial was essential to the proper presentation of its case' entitled to remain in courtroom). Finally, the draftsmen of the Federal Rules were preparing rules for criminal as well as civil cases. In the former, in view of the Sixth Amendment, exclusion of a party would indeed 'raise serious problems of confrontation and due process,' as stated in the Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 615.7 In contrast, if enforcement of § 8(a)(3) were to take place through a Government suit in a district court, we fail to see how any constitutional problem would be created by applying 'the rule' to discriminatees, at least to the limited extent of excluding them during the testimony given by fellow discriminatees concerning a single event.
However, we need not decide whether, if somehow an analogous situation were to arise in a district court, witnesses occupying a position similar to discriminatees in § 8(a)(3) proceedings would be immune from sequestration because of the second sentence of Rule 615. Under the direction in § 10(b) that the rules of evidence applicable in the district courts shall be applied only 'so far as practicable,' the conduct of unfair labor practice proceedings would not have to conform precisely to the second sentence of Rule 615--even if the Federal Rules of Evidence had been in effect when this hearing was held--so long as there is substantial reason for fashioning a different rule. The considerations so well stated by Judge Allen in N.L.R.B. v. Burke Mach. Tool Co., supra, 133 F.2d at 621, dictate some application of 'the rule' in Labor Board hearings even when the witnesses are alleged discriminatees. Exclusion of discriminatees for a portion of the hearing, even if it were to be assumed that, because of Rule 615, persons similarly situated could not now be excluded in a similar type of action in a district court--an assumption which may or may not be valid--would be a small price for them to pay for the General Counsel's prosecuting the complaint on their behalf. Weighing the relative importance of the presence of a discriminatee at every moment of the trial to the zealous advocacy of his cause against the danger that his financial interest makes the temptation to perjury great, and considering the imbalance from failure to apply 'the rule' to discriminatees while it would generally be applicable against the employer, we think that the ALJ should have authority to apply 'the rule' to discriminatees and that, where several discriminatees are to be called as witnesses to the same incident, the presumption in favor of sequestration during such testimony could be rebutted, if at all, only by a particularized showing of need for the discriminatees to hear each other's evidence--a showing we find extremely hard to visualize. We hold, therefore, that the ALJ should have had authority to sequester the four employee witnesses during their respective testimony to the May 11 events, and that, under the rather typical facts here presented, failure to have exercised that discretion in favor of sequestration would have been an abuse of discretion.IV.
The only other point requiring discussion is respondent's contention that Peters was a supervisor within § 2(11) and thus not an 'employee,' § 2(3), protected by § 8(a)(1) and (3). No useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence. It suffices to say that this created a close question of fact whether Peters was 'merely a superior workman or lead man who exercises the control of a skilled worker over less capable employees, or is a supervisor who shares the power of management,' N.L.R.B. v. Southern Bleachery & Print Works, 257 F.2d 235, 239 (4 Cir. 1958), cert. denied,359 U.S. 911, 79 S.Ct. 588, 3 L.Ed.2d 575 (1959). It is settled law that the Board's determination of this question receives even more than usual weight. As Judge Waterman said for us in N.L.R.B. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 405 F.2d 1169, 1172 (2 Cir. 1968):
Respondent claimed that it employed 18 maintenance workers during May, 1973; counsel for the Board disputed the precise number. The original charge issued against respondent alleged a violation of § 8(a)(5) as well as § 8(a)(3) and (1); the § 8(a)(5) charge was dismissed prior to the hearing on the basis that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees
The history of these substantive changes was authoritatively described by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 476--91, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). It is to be noted, however, that, in contrast to the provision concerning judicial review, the rules of evidence provision of the Taft-Hartley Act cannot be read in tandem with the Administrative Procedure Act, which has different provisions. See 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 14.08 at 285--86 (1958)
The term 'party' as used herein shall mean the regional director in whose region the proceeding is pending and any person named or admitted as a party, or properly seeking and entitled as of right to be admitted as a party, in any Board proceeding, including, without limitation, any person filing a charge or petition under the act, any person named as respondent, as employer, or as party to a contract in any proceeding under the act, and any labor organization alleged to be dominated, assisted, or supported in violation of section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(2) of the act; but nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the Board or its designated agent from limiting any party to participate in the proceedings to the extent of his interest only
Respondent claims that the record fails to show that it knew of the employees' union activities at the time they were fired, and that, lacking such proof, the order cannot stand; apparently the claim is that the employer's knowledge must be directly proven. The law is clear that such direct evidence need not be introduced, and that the employer's knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances. N.L.R.B. v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 602, 61 S.Ct. 358, 85 L.Ed. 368 (1941); Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. N.L.R.B., 112 U.S.App.D.C. 252, 302 F.2d 186, 190 (1962)