Court Opinion

ID: 9459745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:30:42.709617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:19.173676
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
The opinion of the majority is based upon the initial premise that this is a case “ . . . challenging the long established procedure of consolidating for a single hearing objections to a representation election and charges of unfair labor practices.”
It is further based, to a considerable extent, upon a finding by the majority that the conflict of interest arising from the admittedly “dual role” of the attorney for the government was “theoretical,” and that his dual participation was “insufficient to establish such a degree of partisanship that would destroy the fairness of the hearing.”
I must respectfully dissent both to the phrasing of the problem and the finding of such facts as to the conduct of the government’s attorney,1 which I submit are not supported by the record.
While the writing which follows will set out my conception of the legal setting of the case, I note here the record discloses that 59 2 objections to testimony and motions to strike were made during the hearing. The government’s attorney, who was obviously the leading counsel on that side of the dispute, lodged 34 objections to evidence, all to questions by the company’s attorney, and none to questions by the attorney for the union. The union lodged 17 objections to evidence, all to company questions. Only to one of these objections did the government’s attorney indicate that he felt the union’s position was not well taken. The attorney for the government joined in none of the company’s seven objections to evidence, and in 9 of the union’s 17 objections, 7 of which were overruled. Thus, so far as the opinion of the majority is based on the finding that the government’s attorney had only a theoretical conflict of interest, or that his degree of partisanship was insignificant, the record speaks to the contrary.
Some repetition of facts stated in the majority opinion is unavoidable. On *199April 22, 1970, the company filed four objections to the conduct of the election. They are: (1) an international union representative named Snodgrass told a gathering of 200-250 employees that union supporters should put kerosene in the lunch boxes of employees who would not join; (2) the employee Willie Quinn, a union advocate, held a meeting of seven other employees at which he informed them that they were to be the members of a violence club whose function it would be to intimidate any employee who would not join the union and stifle those actively opposing the union; (3) the union attempted to and did pay employees to advocate and vote for the union; (4) the union’s regional director, Dixon, told a gathering of employees that a letter from the company to all employees wrongfully represented that at other plants the union had lost representation elections and in the one plant where they had won, men lost their jobs, there was a strike, and negotiations were still not completed.
These objections were investigated by the Regional Director of region 11 of the NLRB. In a report dated July 6, 1970, the Regional Director recommended that a hearing be held to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the issues raised by objections 1 and 2, and he further recommended that objections 3 and 4 be overruled.
The company filed its objections and exceptions to the report of the Regional Director. In its order of September 22, 1970, the NLRB construed the objections and exceptions as follows:
“Thereafter, on August 11, 1970, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director’s report, submitting that the Regional Director’s recommendation that objections 3 and 4 be overruled should be rejected and that an evidentiary hearing should be directed on all the Employer’s objections as well as on the evidence of objectionable conduct not specifically included in the formal objections.” [Emphasis added]
The order further directed a hearing using the following language:
“ . . . Objection 4 is hereby overruled. However, the Employer’s exceptions raise issues with respect to both Objection 3 and alleged threats of violence and retaliation which can best be resolved by a hearing. Accordingly,
It is Hereby Ordered that a hearing be held before a duly designated Hearing Officer for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve the issues set forth above, as well as the issues raised by objections 1 and 2.” [Emphasis added]
The manner in which the Board construed the company’s objections and the language the Board used in directing a hearing become important in considering the company’s argument that in the subsequent hearing the hearing officer wrongfully limited the evidence to the specific objections numbered 1, 2 and 3, and refused to consider threats of violence and retaliation not specifically alleged in those objections.
The Regional Director then ordered that the company’s case challenging the election and the union’s ease challenging the discharge of employee Quinn be consolidated “in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act and to avoid unnecessary costs and delay.” The company filed a timely motion to sever the proceedings, 29 C.F.R. § 102.33(d), which was denied. In that motion, the company called attention of the Board to the fact that the same attorney was representing the Board in both eases and his conflicting interests.
I consider first the company’s argument that the hearing examiner wrongfully limited the scope of the hearing. The majority opinion disposes of this question by stating the belief that “ . . . the company was permitted to put into the record, all the evidence it had to support its position.” The record, however, does not support such belief, for who will ever know what evi*200dence was not offered in the face of the clearly erroneous ruling of the examiner which limited the scope of the hearing.3
To place this argument in its proper perspective, it should be pointed out that after the company filed its objections and exceptions to the election, but before the Regional Director had completed investigating such objections, the company submitted additional evidence of objectionable conduct which was not initially included in the objections filed by the company. The Regional Director’s report does not show that he considered such additional evidence. In language which we have already quoted, the Board specifically noted and sustained this objection. After taking cognizance of the objection, the Board directed that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by it. However, with the support of the attorney for the government, the hearing officer construed the order so as to limit the hearing to the specifics of objections 1, 2 and 3. I believe the Board’s order was a clear mandate for a hearing broader in scope than that conducted by the hearing officer. The Board contends that the company actually did get its evidence in, even though the trial examiner indicated that the scope of the hearing would be limited to the specifics of objections 1, 2 and 3. While it may be true that counsel was skillful enough to get some of his evidence before the examiner indirectly by bits and pieces, the ineffectiveness and prejudice of this method of introducing evidence through the back door is self evident.
This is especially true, as here, when the trier of fact has already indicated *201that such evidence will not be considered. I am of opinion that the trial examiner should have received the evidence of additional threats of violence in accordance with the Board’s order for a hearing. His action in not receiving such evidence is a clear violation of the order of the Board under which he acted.
Petitioner further contends that its rights were prejudiced by the consolidation of the cases below. In case number ll-CA-4257, the union charged that the company wrongfully discharged employee Quinn because of his support of the union. Case number ll-RC-3076 involved the company’s objections to the representation election. With regard to consolidation, the rules and regulations of the NLRB, 29 C.F.R. § 102.33, provide as follows:
“(a) Whenever the general counsel deems it necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of the act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, he may permit a charge to be filed with him in Washington, D. C., or may, at any time after a charge has been filed with a regional director pursuant to § 102.10, order that such charge and any proceeding which may have been initiated with respect thereto:
(1) Be transferred to and continued before him for the purpose of investigation or consolidation with any other proceeding which may have been instituted in a regional office or with him; or
(2) Be consolidated with any other proceeding which may have been instituted in the same region.”
The company does not attack all consolidation on its face; indeed, consolidation of cases is an approved practice of long standing. NLRB v. Dixie Shirt Co., 176 F.2d 969, 970 (4th Cir. 1949); 29 C.F. R. § 102.33(a)(2). As the company correctly points out, how,ever, consolidation is proper only where the rights of the parties will not be prejudiced thereby. See NLRB v. Chelsea Clock Co., 411 F. 2d 189 (1st Cir. 1969). Petitioner contends it was in fact prejudiced by the manner in which these consolidated cases were heard. Such prejudice, it is argued, resulted from the close relationship between the facts in each case and from the fact that the same lawyer represented the Board in both cases.
The Board’s rules and regulations describe a representation hearing as follows:
“§ 101.20 Formal Hearing
(c) . . . The hearing, which is nonadversary in character, is part of the investigation in which the primary interest of the Board’s agents is to insure that the record contains as full a statement of the pertinent facts as may be necessary for determination of the case. The parties are afforded full opportunity to present their respective positions and to produce the significant facts in support of their contentions.”
Thus, the attorney for the Board in the representation case had the duty to insure that the record was as complete as possible with regard to the facts pertaining to that case. The NLRB Field Manual, § 1142.4, directs that the Board’s counsel must exercise self restraint, be impartial, and display the appearance of impartiality.
Hearings on unfair labor charges are quite a different matter. Such a hearing is described by the Board’s rules and regulations, § 101.10:
“The Government’s case is conducted by an attorney attached to the Board’s regional office, who has the responsibility of presenting the evidence in support of the complaint.”
As counsel for the General Counsel in the unfair labor practice case, then, the attorney’s duty was that of every lawyer in an adversary trial — to advocate his position. Impartiality is cast aside.
The conflict of interest of the government’s attorney was particularly acute *202here because of the close connection between the facts underlying the consolidated cases. For example, the conduct of employee Quinn was at issue in each case. The union, and the Board in the unfair labor practice case, claimed that Quinn was wrongfully discharged because of his pro-union activity. One of the company’s main objections to the election was that Quinn had formed a violence club to intimidate anti-union employees. The company claimed Quinn was discharged for threatening fellow employees both before and after the election. To enhance his chances of success in the unfair labor practice charge, government counsel obviously would strive to resist the introduction of evidence tending to show any questionable conduct by Quinn. Yet, at the same time, it was his duty in the representation case to maintain neutrality as to the merits and to strive for the admission of such evidence because of his duty to insure as complete a record as possible. At the same time, the same government attorney would have to seek to introduce and exclude evidence of Quinn’s violent proclivities.
Throughout the hearing, counsel for the Board and counsel for the General Counsel (the same lawyer) played the advocate. He objected frequently to the company’s testimony as being repetitive, leading, hearsay and the like, which was in marked contrast to his almost entire absence of disagreement with the union’s every contention. At one point, he successfully urged the trial examiner to strike certain testimony because it was being brought out during the case in rebuttal instead of during the case in chief. "Such a position was wholly inconsistent with his duty to remain neutral and develop as complete a record as possible, as well as being inconsistent with the Board’s stated purpose of obtaining a full statement of pertinent facts in representation election hearings, 29 C.F.R. § 101.20. The ruling just referred to concerned activity of one Dixon. On direct examination, one of the company’s witnesses attributed a statement to Dixon, a union representative. Dixon denied making the statement. To rebut this, the company called another witness to identify Dixon as the speaker and incidentally repeat the statement. Relying upon the rule that such testimony should have been brought out during the company’s evidence in chief, the examiner struck the testimony at the instance of the government’s attorney. Leaving aside the propriety of such a ruling, even in an adversary proceeding, it is unquestionably erroneous in an investigatory, non-adversary proceeding. While I recognize that consolidation of representation election hearings with unfair labor practice hearings is frequently, or even usually, proper, and I do not say that the same lawyer may never represent the Board and the General Counsel in such proceedings, where, as here, the facts pertaining to both cases are closely related, and performance of duty in one role precludes its proper performance in another, I am of opinion that the same lawyer may not represent the government in both cases. The clear conflict of duty in a case such as this may dictate success on the one hand and failure on the other as its unavoidable consequence. Where the government’s attorney sacrifices his neutrality for the role of advocate, I believe the other side is deprived of opportunity for a fair chance to present its case.
The record establishes that the Board’s own rules were violated, under the facts here presented, by the assignment of the same attorney to represent the government in both cases where his duties necessarily conflicted; the government’s attorney played the role of advocate throughout; the government abandoned its neutral position in representation hearings; the trial examiner made at least one ruling on material evidence at the instance of the government’s attorney which was clearly erroneous; and the trial examiner violated the Board’s order as to the scope of the representation hearing.
*203To decide the representation issue on such a record would be manifestly unfair and legally unsound because of the procedural errors which were committed in making up the record.
The company claims the conduct of the hearing as above set forth is a violation of procedural due process. I do not find it necessary to reach the constitutional question. Although a hearing may satisfy the rudiments of due process, it is nevertheless subject to scrutiny. The Board, like any other agency, must abide by its own rules, regulations and established procedures.4 As stated by this court in NLRB v. Poinsett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121, 123 (4th Cir. 1955), (quoting NLRB v. Indiana & Mich. Elec. Co., 318 U.S. 9, 63 S.Ct. 394, 87 L.Ed. 579),
“The Act accords a great degree of finality to the Board’s findings of fact, and this court has been insistent that the admonition of the Act be strictly observed. But courts which are required upon a limited review to lend their enforcement powers to the •Board’s orders are granted some discretion to see that the hearings out of which the conclusive findings emanate do not shut off a party’s right to produce evidence or conduct cross-examination material to the issue. The statute demands respect for the judgment of the Board as to what the evidence proves. But the court is given discretion to see that before a party’s rights are foreclosed his ease has been fairly heard.”
If it appears that a case has not been fairly heard, this court has the discretion and, indeed, the duty to correct abuses apparent from the record. Such abuse may be corrected on remand. General Steel Products v. NLRB, 445 F.2d 1350 (4th Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Poin-sett Lumber & Mfg. Co., 221 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1955). I would remand this case to the Board with instructions that a new hearing on the objections to the election be conducted in accordance with the Board’s rules and in accordance with its order of September 22,1970.

. I do not imply any personal or professional criticism of the attorney. He was simply put into an impossible position by the rulings of the Board and the Examiner.

. Obviously, one of these is a duplication.

. Neither the record nor the majority opinion even suggest that the company acted in bad faith. In the absence of bad faith, in the face of a ruling limiting proof by the trier of fact, witnesses need not be called to make a formal offer of proof and “ . . . an appellate court must assume that the proof could have been made, and govern itself accordingly.” Scotland County v. Hill, 112 U.S. 183, 186, 5 S.Ct. 93, 95, 28 L.Ed. 692 (1884). [Emphasis added].
The majority states that the company “. . . stated in its Response to Notice to Show Cause on General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment that the ‘additional evidence’ purportedly excluded by the Trial Examiner would have consisted of the testimony of eight workmen.”
Again, I am of opinion that the record does not support this finding. The record shows that the eight affidavits referred to in the majority opinion were filed with an exception to an earlier ruling by the Regional Director and were referred to by the company as having been so filed in the Response above spoken of by the majority. Far from stating that the eight affidavits set out the additional testimony, the Response, to the contrary, complained the “. . . Trial Examiner erred by refusing to allow Respondent to present witnesses and other relevant evidence as to ‘alleged threats of violence and retaliation’ . . . . ”
Further, the Board, in its order of April 10, 1972, based its decision, at least in large part, on the astonishing statement that the company “. . .is not entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation hearing.” And this, in the face of sustaining, in the same order, the erroneous ruling by the Examiner restricting the scope of the hearing in clear violation of the Board’s previous order.
On the same subject, the clear inference by the majority that the Board considered all the relevant additional evidence is not, in my opinion, supported by the record. The quotation on page 196 of the majority opinion is taken from a footnote in the opinion of the Board dated September 29, 1971, some seven months before the order of the Board granting summary judgment against the company. When read in context, it is seen the quotation should refer to only the testimony of two witnesses which was being commented upon at that point in the footnote. Even assuming the quotation to be susceptible to the meaning attributed to it by the majority, its conclusion is not supported by the record for the Trial Examiner had previously and erroneously restricted the scope of the hearing. No one will ever know from this record what evidence might have been introduced had the Board’s order of September 22, 1970 been complied with by the Trial Examiner.

. W. G. Cosby Transfer & Storage v. Froehlke, 480 F.2d 498 (4th Cir., 1973) ; Brooks v. Clifford, 409 F.2d 700, 706 (4th Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Wilbur, 427 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1970) ; Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141 (2nd Cir. 1969) ; Bonita, Inc. v. Wirtz, 125 U.S. App.D.C. 163, 369 F.2d 208 (1966) ; United States v. Orta, 305 F.Supp. 1073 (D.Puerto Rico 1969) ; Cf. Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 83 S.Ct. 1828, 10 L.Ed.2d 778 (1963) ; Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed. 2d 1403 (1957).