Court Opinion

ID: 9470109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:57:26.810495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:44.364660
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. As to seven of the ten respondents {e.g., all respondents other than Hebert, Farnsworth and Boh), it is plain to me that the complainant Carpenters Union wholly failed to discharge its admitted burden of “showing ... relevance and need” and “failed to show that the information was actually relevant to the situation as it then existed,” as its evidence amounted to no “more than mere ‘suspicion or surmise’.” San Diego Newspaper Guild Local No. 95 v. N.L.R.B., 548 F.2d 863, 868 (9th Cir.1977). See also N.L.R.B. v. Temple-Eastex, Inc., 579 F.2d 932, 937 n. 1 (5th Cir.1978).
With respect to these seven respondents, the Union relied primarily on the testimony of its business agent Laborde as to what Lemoine, an officer of Perrilliet, a contractor not a respondent herein, had told Laborde in a conversation occurring more than a year before the Union sent the letters in question. According to Laborde, Lemoine said Perrilliet had formed a nonunion “double-breasted” company in order to “compete against” “the other contractors who had agreements with us” that had done so, “and he named a bunch of them that had the double-breasted companies.” There is no indication that any of these respondents were among the companies named by Lemoine. As it was the Union’s burden to show its entitlement to the information requested of these respondents, and as what Lemoine said was peculiarly within the knowledge of the Union officer and witness Laborde, the only fair assumption is that Lemoine did not include any of these respondents among the “bunch of” double-breasted contractors he identified. If this indicates anything, it is that these respondents were not engaged in the practice the Union sought to investigate.
The other “evidence” relied on by the Union respecting these seven respondents is that they, in common with the other respondents, were members of the New Orleans AGC, and that there were indications several AGC members, not including any of these seven respondents, had “double-breasted” companies. There is not a shred of evidence, however, that the practices of AGC members in respect to a matter such as this were normally uniform. Indeed, there is no evidence whatever as to the degree of uniformity or diversity of practice in this or any similar regard among AGC members. The majority’s statement (note 5) that “it is reasonable to suppose that the labor policies of the companies would be similar” (emphasis added) is without any support in the record, and is the kind of guilt-by-association approach which our courts have so long and so vigorously eschewed. If this is not “mere ‘suspicion or surmise’,” then what do these words mean?
Reliance in this respect on N.L.R.B. v. Associated General Contractors, 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 915, 101 S.Ct. 3049, 69 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981), is wholly misplaced. In the AGC case, there *1127was a multiemployer bargaining unit, and the AGC was the party with which the Union contracted. Evidence indicating that some of the AGC members, who were covered by this contract, engaged in “double breasting” was held to justify the Union’s request for information from the AGC. In other words, there was evidence of “double breasting” for which the party from whom the information was sought was contractually responsible to the Union requesting the information. Here, by contrast, the Board, in the order which the majority enforces, has found “insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a multiemployer bargaining unit.” Moreover, none of the requests for information here in issue were made to the New Orleans AGC, and it is not even a respondent. Rather, the requests were made severally to the individual respondent companies, and they individually and severally are respondents in this unfair labor practice proceeding. So far as this record shows, we have treated General Motors and Chrysler just like Chevrolet and Pontiac.
There are other glaring deficiencies in the proof. Not only is there no evidence of any “double breasting” by these seven respondents, there is indeed no evidence whatever of any relation between them and their respective assumed siblings concerning whom the Union made inquiry. Nor is there any showing that the assumed siblings employ any carpenters or are even in the construction business.
The majority purports to recognize the settled distinction between information normally intrinsic to the employer-employee relationship, which is considered presumptively relevant, with the employer having the burden to show otherwise, and information, such as that here sought, which is not ordinarily pertinent to the Union’s relationship with the employer from whom it is requested, but may be relevant due to the existence of particular special circumstances, as to which the Union has the initial burden of showing relevancy. However, if this distinction has any validity and sub-serves any purpose, then in the second class of case some character of showing, beyond “mere ‘suspicion and surmise’,” must be required of the Union in regard to the particular employer from whom the information is sought and who is made respondent in the unfair labor practice proceeding. Since no such showing has been made as to these seven respondents, I respectfully dissent.