Court Opinion

ID: 9451371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:15:56.068089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:41.603118
License: Public Domain

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result reached by the majority on the ground that proof of effect on interstate commerce is not required on a case-by-case basis in prosecutions commenced under 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) and (b).
*101Subsection 186(b) makes it unlawful “for any person to request, demand, receive, or accept, or agree to receive or accept, any payment, loan, or delivery of any money or other thing of value” prohibited by subsection (a) of that section. And subsection (a) (1) prohibits an employer from making or agreeing to make any payment, loan, or delivery of money or other thing of value “to any representative of any of his employees who are employed in an industry affecting commerce * * * ” 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) (1). 29 U.S.C. § 142(1) states that the term “industry affecting commerce” as used in section 186 “means any industry or activity in commerce or in which a labor dispute would burden or obstruct commerce or tend to burden or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce.” Finally, 29 U.S.C. § 152(6) states that the term “commerce” means “trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States * * In brief, in order successfully to prosecute Ricciardi and Unger under Section 186(a) and (b) it was incumbent upon the Government to show that the employees of the employers who made the payments to these defendants were in an industry “affecting” commerce. Section 142(1) allowed the Government to make this showing by proving either that the industry or activity in which these employees were employed was itself “in commerce” or that a labor dispute in the industry or activity “would burden or obstruct commerce or tend to burden or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
In Ricciardi’s case the Government did not seriously attempt to establish that the employees of the landlords who had made the payments to Ricciardi were in an industry or activity that was itself “in commerce”; instead, the Government sought to establish that these employees were engaged in an industry or activity in which a labor dispute would burden or obstruct commerce. The trial judge ruled that the ownership, operation and management of apartment houses in the Bronx of thirty or less apartments was the relevant industry.1 It was then established that the number of such apartment houses covered by contracts with the Union numbered between 800 and 1,000 in 1959 and that since then they had increased at the rate of approximately 300 a year so that by 1962 there were nearly 2,000 such buildings. It was also established that fuel bills in this industry ran from $1,200 (for a twenty-unit building) to $4,500 (for a twenty-eight unit building), and it was stipulated that the oil, coal and gas used as fuel in apartment buildings in the Bronx, though purchased by the landlords from local distributors, came from outside the State of New York. At the close of the Government’s case, and again after all the evidence had been presented, the trial court denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss the indictment and for a directed verdict of acquittal for failure of proof, and instructed the jury that: “If, upon all the evidence you find that the purchase, sale, transportation or distribution of fuel originating outside the state, and normally required by the industry, would be interfered with by a stoppage or strike, then you have sufficient upon which to find that it is an industry affecting commerce.”2 The *102question to be answered on appeal in Ricciardi’s case is whether the trial judge erred in ruling that there was sufficient evidence to allow this issue to go to the jury.
Unger’s ease, as the majority notes, presents somewhat different questions; there the trial judge seems to have instructed the jury that in deciding whether the employees of the employer^ who made the payments to Unger were “employed in an industry affecting commerce” the jury might consider the industry or activity of all the employers having contracts with Unger’s union and that it did not have to confine its attention to the operation of multiple dwellings in the Bronx, the industry or activity of the employers mentioned in the indictment. I agree with my brothers that in so charging the jury the trial court erred; a proper charge would have limited the jury’s consideration to the industry or activity of the employers mentioned in the indictment.3
In Unger’s case the undisputed evidence established only that the union of which Unger was secretary-treasurer and which represented the employees of the employers who made the payments to Unger had organized by 1959 approximately 5,000 apartment buildings in Bronx and Westchester Counties, that members of this union were superintendents of these buildings and responsible for their heating systems, and, by stipulation, that the oil, coal and gas used as fuel in the buildings were purchased from local distributors but came from outside of New York State. There was no evidence tending to prove the dollar value of the fuel consumed in the apartment buildings organized by Unger’s union. The question before us in Unger’s case is whether this evidence, without more, suffices to establish that the employees of the employers who made the payments to Unger were “employed in an industry affecting commerce” as a matter of law.
It must be emphasized that at neither trial did the Government adduce any evidence tending to show that a labor dispute in the industry would in fact “affect” commerce by reducing the industry’s demand for fuel. Indeed, in TJnger the trial judge on several occasions noted that there was no evidence relating to an effect on commerce in the case.4
Though in affirming .both convictions the majority concedes that it was necessary for the Government to establish in each case that a labor dispute in the apartment-house industry would “affect” the industry’s demand for fuel, in order to excuse the Government’s failure to prove “affect” in either case it invokes the rule that formal proof of facts known at once with certainty is not required.5 In adopting this view of the Government’s case the majority first asserts that unquestionably a strike or slowdown of superintendents who operate apartment-house heating systems would reduce the industry’s demand for fuel. Stating that to be so, the majority then says that in Ricciardi’s case such an obvious fact need not have been proven at trial, or submitted to the jury for resolution, since jurors would know it of their own knowledge, anyway. And in Unger’s case the majority declares that it will take judicial notice of this “obvious” fact, thereby enabling it to affirm Unger’s conviction according to the rules set forth in Ricciardi’s case.
This approach by the majority is unsatisfactory for it collapses the distinction between two separate issues upon which the Government did not adduce proof in either case; the first is whether a labor dispute between the superintendents and the apartment-house owners would, in fact, decrease the industry’s demand for fuel, the second is, assuming that it did occur, whether the decrease *103would be more than de minimis. If the first issue could be affirmatively resolved from the evidence of record one could say in Ricciardi’s case that the jury might rely on its own experience to conclude that in an industry comprising between 800 and 2,000 apartment buildings, each consuming more than $1,000 in fuel, the decrease would be more than de minimis. And assuming the first issue had been affirmatively resolved in Unger’s case one'could take judicial notice that the effect of the decrease on industry demand would be more than de minimis, even though no evidence was introduced tending to show the dollar value of the fuel consumed in the apartment buildings properly constituting the industry. However, I am not persuaded that it is common knowledge that a labor dispute in this industry would decrease the industry’s demand for fuel. I should have thought it likely that all the landlords would rapidly make the minor adjustments necessary to operate the heating systems themselves; and that, if this were done, the industry’s demand for fuel would not decrease. This view prevents me from attributing to Ricciardi’s jury the knowledge necessary to resolve the first issue affirmatively; likewise I cannot join my brothers who believe it possible to take judicial notice of this fact.6
As I have pointed out, the majority assumes that in order for the Government to convict these defendants it was necessary that the Government prove a labor dispute in the Bronx apartment-house industry would, in fact, decrease the industry’s demand for fuel; the majority sustains the convictions, despite a failure of formal proof, because it concludes that formal proof of such an obvious fact is not required. I believe the convictions should be sustained on the ground that proof of effect is not required on a case-by-case basis in prosecutions commenced under 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) and (b). Persuasive authority for this position is found in several decisions construing Section 2(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(7), which defines “affecting commerce” for purposes of that Act.7
In NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 297 F.2d 94 (2 Cir. 1961), our court declined to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board asserting jurisdiction over Reliance Fuel Corporation, a company that sold fuel for heating purposes to New York State customers. Reliance did not make any significant out-of-state purchases, but Reliance did purchase in one calendar year fuel oil and related products valued at more than $650,000 from the Gulf Oil Corporation. Almost all of the products Reliance purchased from Gulf were refined outside of New York State and then shipped to Gulf’s in-state storage facilities. Gulf in turn distributed the products to local storage tanks, one of which served the needs of Reliance. On this evidence we refused to enforce the Board’s order. Our court said:
* * * if the employer is himself engaged in interstate commerce, without more the jurisdiction of the Board is established. If the employer is not engaged in interstate commerce, the acts in question must lead or tend to lead to a dispute *104which must burden or obstruct the free flow of interstate commerce. We believe that in enacting this double test Congress intended the courts to examine whether or not a labor dispute involving only employers not engaged in interstate commerce did or did not directly or indirectly burden or obstruct commerce. * * * 297 F.2d 94, at 99.
Accordingly, our court remanded the case to the Board “with instructions to take further evidence and make further findings on the manner in which a labor dispute at Reliance affects or tends to affect commerce.” Ibid. The Supreme Court in a brief per curiam opinion reversed the Second Circuit, NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 371 U.S. 224, 83 S.Ct. 312, 9 L.Ed.2d 279 (1963), stating that on the evidence of record the Board was justified in finding that “commerce” had been “affected.” Id. at 227, 83 S.Ct. 312.
In view of the Supreme Court’s opinion in NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., supra, it can be persuasively argued that a business not itself in interstate commerce nevertheless “affects” interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the National Labor Relations Act if the business makes substantial purchases of materials that have moved in interstate commerce, and that when evidence of substantial purchases of such materials has been introduced this effect has been conclusively established. See NLRB v. Cross, 346 F.2d 165 (4 Cir.), cert. denied, 86 S.Ct. 290 (1965). And if the requisite effect on interstate commerce of a business not itself in interstate commerce can be established for purposes of Section 2(7) merely by proving that the business purchases significant amounts of material that once moved in interstate commerce it seems to follow that effect should similarly be provable in criminal prosecutions commenced under 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) and (b) involving industries or activities not themselves in interstate commerce. This follows from the fact that the justification for the rule that effect need not be proved on a case-by-case basis is that there is an interest in the expeditious enforcement of federal labor policy, and from the further fact that this interest does not seem to be more worthy of consideration in unfair labor practice proceedings than it is in criminal prosecutions brought under Section 186(a) and (b). If the Supreme Court has ruled that effect may be established in unfair labor practice proceedings by proof of significant purchases of material that once moved in interstate commerce I cannot believe that it did not intend this rule also to apply in criminal proceedings brought to enforce federal labor policy. Therefore, I concur with my brothers in affirming the conviction below on the ground that the Government need not introduce evidence tending to prove that interstate commerce would be burdened by a labor dispute in an industry that is not “in commerce” but need only introduce evidence tending to show that the businesses which comprise the industry purchase significant amounts of material that once moved in interstate commerce.8. Cf. NLRB v. Cross, supra.

. As Judge Moore correctly states in Ms opinion, the trial judge in Biceiardi’s ease correctly ruled that only the particular business in which the employees of the employer (or employers) named in the indictment were engaged comprised the “industry” pertinent to an indictment framed in terms of 29 U.S.C. § 186(a) and (b), but he also held that the jury in considering how commerce might be affected could consider the entire industry of which these businesses were but a part rather than only the businesses of the employers the indictment named.

. Bicciardi’s case went to the jury on the single theory that even though the industry in which the employees of the landlords named in the indictment were engaged was not “in commerce” it might be said to be one “affecting commerce” if the jury could conclude that it was an industry in which a labor dispute would tend to burden commerce.

. See note 1, supra, and accompanying text.

. See Appendix to Brief for Appellant, pp. 94a-95a, 132a, 163a.

. See McCormick, Evidence §§ 323-24 (1954).

. United States v. Pecora, 267 F.2d 512 (3 Cir. 1959), the only case cited by the majority that arises under 29 U.S.O. § 186 and deals with the rule that well known facts need not he formally proved, is distinguishable. There is a world of difference between taking judicial notice of the proposition that “interstate highways affect interstate commerce,” 267 F.2d 512 at 515, and taking judicial notice that a janitors’ strike in the Bronx would affect it to a demonstrable degree.

. Section 2(7) of the National Labor Relations Act defines the term “affecting commerce” to mean “in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dispute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 152(7).

. It might be argued that this does not dispose of Unger’s case since in that case the Government introduced no evidence tending to prove the dollar value of the fuel consumed in the approximately 5,500 apartment buildings in the Bronx and Westchester organized by Unger’s union. However, as I suggest in the body of my concurring opinion, I am quite willing to take judicial notice that an industry defined to include so many businesses would purchase more than a de minimis amount of fuel.