Document: 330 U.S. 219 67 S.Ct. 756 91 L.Ed. 854 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDv.DONNELLY GARMENT CO. et al. INTERNATIONAL LADIES' WORKERS' UNION v. SAME. Nos. 38 and 39. Argued Oct. 16, 1946. Decided March 3, 1947. [Syllabus from pages 219-221 intentionally omitted] Miss Ruth Weyand, of Washington, D.C., for National Labor Relations board. Mr. Clifton Langsdale, Kansas City, Mo., International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. Robert J. Ingraham, Donnelly Co. Frank E. Tyler, City., r. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 On 6, 1940, Board, on finding that Company had engaged in labor practices condemned as 'unfair' by Wagner Act, issued an order against 'to effectuate policies' Act. The Circuit Court Appeals Eighth denied enforcement remanded case to Board. 123 F.2d 215. After carrying out what it conceived be directions Board again found Company. below Board's second 'for want due process proceedings upon which is based.' 8 Cir., 151 854, 875. correctness this ruling now before us, we brought here, 327 775, 66 958, rule important issues administration This protracted litigation has given rise a swarm questions. In view fact comes us after been twice three times court below, record thirteen volumes with total more than 5000 pages, even earnest attempt at compactness cannot avoid somewhat extended opinion. 2 presents limited legal phases one those bitter, unedifying conflicts American industrial history unfortunately replete. For other growing strife, see 20 F.Supp. 767; 21 807; 304 243, 58 875, 82 1316, Id., 23 998; 99 309; 119 892; 121 561; 47 61; Dubinsky, 65; 67; Union, 55 572; 587; Unternational 147 246; 154 38. It its roots campaign Ladies Workers Union (hereafter designated International) unionize women's garment industry Missouri. Because importance, (to called short) became particular target these unionizing efforts. These continued varying intensity over period years but met little success among Company's employees. 3 1938, began charging series unfair violation §§ 2(6), (7) 8(1), (2), (3) 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C. § seq., U.S.C.A. seq. main charge was Company, counteract efforts International, stimulated formation plant union, Union) dominated through financial aid. Following usual procedure there hearing trial examiner. At hearing, Examiner rejected offer prove, testimony 1200 employees, they not coerced join each them done so his own free will, no knowledge influence affairs also excluded evidence show followed strike threats violence successful smaller competitors coerce into closed-shop agreement International. To less exclusions duly excepted submission Trial Examiner's intermediate report. upheld rulings evidence, accepted findings fact, and, qualification here relevant, adopted recommendations. Thereupon cease-and-desist order, directed disestablishment reimbursement employees amount dues checked off behalf (21 N.L.R.B. 164). 4 Review came petition set aside cross-petition enforcement. several contentions, disposition relevant questions calling decision, sustained basis setting claim either or biased. held properly raised complaint, since impropriety exclusion offered prove misconduct. did however find fair being allowed present effect truly independent joined voluntarily. further inconsistent Court'. 5 thereupon original Examiner. Insisting he biased prejudiced valueless 'the adduced pending hearing', moved new application proceeded hearing. time heard eleven named proof earlier proceeding, declined hear rest ground their would merely cumulative. He President whom illness kept testify fully. Otherwise, received available exclauded all events subsequent termination first recommendations, respects material, were substantially same previously made, acting report, virtually order. 50 241. petitioned requested During pendency proceedings, invoked 10(e) Act asked leave adduce claimed erroneously excluded. motion granted. Instead, already noted, forth views careful thirty printed record. There concurring opinion, dissent. 6 canvassed many items evidence. As some disapproved, stated explicitly themselves have afforded sufficient reversal. Rulings individually invalidate do combination acquire necessary strength undo under authority Congress, done. We amounted unfairness. must therefore consider objections deemed vitiate suggest tribunal incapable judgment case. such justified. 7 First. controlling Court's unfairness related proffered proceeding. stage consisting proceeding remand resulting review Appeals, response remand. refusing judged light interrelation two justifiable interpretation Indeed, turns decisively taken duty mandate. becomes revert precise terms said Court.' yields gloss mandate: 9 'Our conclusion denied. think least can do, cure defects caused failure receive admissible vacate conclusions based; accord petitioners (the union) opportunity introduce competent material Examiner; together making order.' 215, 225. 10 based reopening only purpose admitting short, understand call trial. Court, when construe four later, took different meaning decision November, 1941: 'It is, think, apparent effect, ruled union entitled might hearing.' 856. From point view, could readily conclude 'presents incomplete picture.' 11 recognized mandate normally best judge content, general theory author document ordinarily authoritative interpreter purposes.' But, continued, 'it true lower court's here. Compare United States Morgan, 307 183, 59 795, 83 1211. Therefore, foreclosed gave mandate, if court.' Federal Communications Commission Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 134, 141, 60 437, 440, 84 656. Here, much deeper issue involved. occasion case, are significant differences between relations appellate law-enforcing agency, like whose subject restricted judicial review. may particularly telling agency. Due regard guide maze details 12 context remanding nature administrative entrusted, justified deeming itself grant 'new trial' sense start anew upper directs reference trial', nor any intimation breadth required. appears very dissatisfaction correspondingly correction. 'The do', wrote court, 'is * rejcted page do' well imply authorized draw wide scope statutory discretion. But advise (it) does put default doing more. afford party right treat rehearsal adequate. And require covered piecemeal. 13 Second. Since our de novo, required reopen left unassailed decision. shall treating sequel correcting prior erroneous testimony. 14 (1) large extent turned relation union. infer denial influenced most comply regarding proffer voluntarily organized that, knowledge, uninfluenced admitted excluding oral quarred confining line witnesses. reached neither account reaching based. principally concluded full secure 15 According early English judge, devil himself knoweth mind man', modern reviewing better equipped lay bare unexposed mental processes. grave responsibility went mere pretense obedience direction, deaf ear closed mind. Congress endowed conscientiousness attribute another branch Government, reject explicit avowal take should considered unless examination whole puts acceptance beyond reason. matter crucial, appropriate quote fully point: 16 'In respondent Company) D.G.W.U. permitted respondent's Company's) show, substance, formed will influenced, interfered with, choosing organization bargai ing representative. compliance pursuant respective offers submitted introduction carefully find, however, question overcome positive committed acts interference assistance subjected domination removed employees' selection complete freedom choice contemplates. totally unpersuasive D.G.W.U., moreover impelled adhere derived experience conclusionary immaterial presented A consideration convinces contributed support thereto; thereby restrained, exercise rights guaranteed Section Act.' 17 read otherwise assurance go motions allowing witnesses get empty formality, heeded reflected worth, to, mass unpersuasive. Had hardly disregard skeptical expression kind disproves Even courts sometime indicate disagreement bound enforce. Out repeated instances thing generalization worth almost inevitably emerge thoughts tribunal. sort testimony, observed feeling 'that constraint subtle thing, recognition high degree introspective perception.' Judge Magruder Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation 114 930, 937. down materiality Suffice say obeyed considered. Its probative value See Pittsburgh Plate Glass 313 146, 163, 61 908, 917, 85 1251. repelled 'carefully considered' bade consider. expressly withheld 18 (2) led Examiner, approved render unfair. offensive aspect International's bearing quite instrument. antagonized part sought self-protection own, formed. within six months preceding o ganization notion limit drawn somewhere ascertaining known persuading form longer too remote, or, event, value. Surely reasonable hearing-tribunal. rate circumscribing establishing toward urged while back calculated continuous state influencing employee association By way rebuttal 1937 spontaneous effort wholly fostered company 1935. follow limitation regardless tendered. Certainly allow coercion 1935 independence 1937. solid enough establish discriminatory treatment because whereas drew thereto. 19 While construed retrial stop still process. Change circumstances make irrelevant change rendered below. November 1941, misdeeds tenor reasoning inquiry charges misconduct complainant. challenged June 9, 1943. meantime, January 18, 1943, decided Indiana & Michigan Electric 318 63 394, 399, 87 579. That thought, admission violence. misapplication They common accusation complainant cases, raise, different. involved authorizing additional shown "to satisfaction material,' grounds evidence' 'was addressed sound discretion court'. Southport Petroleum 315 100, 104, 62 452, 455, 86 718. formulates familiar principle newly discovered without explicitness has, occasion, orders stand where drastic circumstances. tending seriou complaining refused Sixth granted 10(e). 124 50. it, abuse ordering grounds: Inasmuch load, entertaining complaints, revealed affect, jurisdiction power entertain charge; bore materially credibility Board; attributed conduct supervisory lead self-interest charged employer. Here situation. allowable compelled admit clearly insupportable. employed enlarge short reversible error interpreted hold full-dress complainant, serious, renders law. dealing abstraction Nothing justify invalidation deal separate issue, though affecting behavior played invoked, suggestion character right-fully complaint. attention tried formally crime. unreasl deny plenty apprise alleged score chose company. doctrinaire assume result voluminous. supra. ordered completely lacking assessing employer refusal try impair validity 22 trials, tendency illuminating relevance largely hears See, e.g., Foreword, Law Institute Code Evidence, p. 15. Courts Appeal le inclined base rulings. Administrative tribunals freer conventional rules Tagg Bros. Moorhead States, 280 420, 442, 220, 225, 74 524. specifically provided prevailing law equity controlling.' 10(b). Third. brings objection made review, contention 219. improperly so, apparently, actual bias demonstrated seemed generous ought examiner who, reason findings, capable exercising impartiality. Cetainly administration, requirements apart, Judicial Code, 21, 28 25, disqualified sitting reversed warrant imposing agencies stiffer rule, whereby examiners disentitled sit strongly gone compulsions who report litigious embroilments. advised greater leeway strictly relevant. takes appearance grievances. spent, easy satisfy interested parties, defeated litigants, how fairly treated, always justice. event advisers agencies. upset fall afoul requirements. Cf. Inland Empire Dist. Council Millis, 325 697, 65 89 1877. offends them. 24 Fourth. examined pressed need merit. remains proper Having infirmities sufficiency sustain controversy long things equal, highly desirable finally dispose equal. function instance placed Appeals. peculiarly unusual pass court. entire demands work preclude canvass volumes, containing pages. Two judges opposite findings. determination 25 Reversed remanded.

Category: 6