Opinion ID: 1931324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: c ) Relationship of written findings to the Order.

Text: The Company contends that the Order of the Board is void because of various alleged irregularities committed by the Board in its consideration and determination of the matter, and that the denial of its motion to take testimony to prove the irregularities was a denial of due process. The record clearly shows that while the Board's Order was dated April 19, 1950, and was filed on April 20, 1950, the Findings of Fact and Decision of the Board were not filed until five weeks later, on May 25, 1950. The Order does not recite that written findings of fact had been made prior to the signing of the Order. It was conceded that findings of fact must precede the making of an order thereon and on the oral argument counsel for the Union stated that the Order could not be effective until the findings of fact were filed, May 25, 1950, but it is argued that oral factual findings were made prior to April 19, 1950, the date of the Order, although they were not reduced to writing until afterward and were not filed until five weeks later. The statute expressly requires written findings of fact to be made and refers to findings, decision and order in that sequence. It is of the essence of the statute and substantial reason exists and dictates that the legislative intent is that the making of written findings must precede the making of the order. The statute further provides that    The findings of fact, decision and order    shall forthwith be filed by such board with the Governor   . Unless the written findings of fact precede the making of the order, opportunity is presented to back into an order through the expedient of drafting findings of fact to support an order previously made. As a matter of public policy this opportunity should be prevented. The dispute existing in the present case regarding the making of oral findings, as to time, manner and content, is a clear illustration of the reason for such a policy. The preparation and filing of the present order five weeks prior to the making and filing of the written findings of fact by the Board contravenes the orderly process contemplated by the statute to insure substantial justice. It is apparent on the record that the Board did not comply with the statutory procedure in these substantial particulars and for this additional reason the Board's order cannot be sustained. It is to be observed that the statute contemplates that the findings of fact shall be the product of deliberation and conference of all members of the Board to the end that their views and reasoning be considered by the other members in reaching a determination. It is not clear that this was so in this case. See the conflicting statements appearing in Findings of Fact and Decision of the majority of the Board (Appendix to Appellant's Brief, p. 9a) and the Dissent and Findings of the Industry member of the Board (Appendix to Appellant's Brief, p. 72a et seq. ). The logic and necessity of joint deliberation is considered in Lloyd v. Moore, 1 N.J.L. 167 ( Sup. Ct. 1792); Barr v. Chandler, 47 N.J. Eq. 523 ( Ch. 1890); McAlpine v. Garfield Water Commission, 135 N.J.L. 497 ( E. & A. 1947).