Opinion ID: 1482877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Partiality of Examiner and of Board.

Text: This issue is a contention that the examiner and also the Board were unfair in the hearing and determination of the matters before them. Several instances of rejection and admission of testimony and of failure to enforce a subpoena duces tecum are urged as proof of unfairness. We have read the entire record. We are impressed that the examiner was entirely fair. We have no doubt of his intention to be fair and we think that his conduct of the hearing was commendable. Whether he may have erred as to some matters of evidence is not controlling since we find no evidence excluded which would be vital on either of the main issues (see National Labor Relations Board v. William Randolph Hearst et al., 9 Cir., 102 F.2d 658, decided March 23, 1939). A matter particularly stressed has to do with an application by the company for issuance of subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. This application was dated July 16, 1937, and filed upon that date in the office of the Regional Director. At the close of all of the evidence, a copy of this application was made part of the record before the examiner. At that time, a discussion between counsel for the company and for the Board revealed that subpoenas had been brought by counsel for the Board to give to counsel for the company but that they had not been handed to such counsel although available during the hearing. The reason offered by counsel for the Board for not delivering the subpoenas was that there had been some conversation between counsel and I [counsel for Board] thought that when we left Mr. Cooney [counsel for company] that he was going to reconsider whether he wanted these subpoenas. The situation seems to have been the result of a misunderstanding. When this became clear at the time counsel for the company sought to place the copy in the record before the examiner, no request for the delivery was then made. Nor was any remedy sought in this Court. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 226, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. ___. The Board accorded a full hearing upon exceptions to the report of the examiner. We find no ground for the complaint that the company was not accorded a fair hearing either by the examiner or by the Board.