Court Opinion

ID: 9446001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:43:29.900924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:29.185612
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The only point which requires discussion of the petition for rehearing is respondent’s contention that it properly raised before the trial examiner the issue as to whether respondent, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, threatened to discharge several employees if they joined the strike. In our opinion we did not consider that issue for the reason that respondent, as shown by citations in the Board’s reply brief and not answered by respondent, had failed to file exceptions to the trial examiner’s findings concerning alleged threats made by Morley, respondent’s president, or to the examiner’s conclusion that such threats violated the Act. The Board’s reply brief was filed September 3, 1957, and respondent filed no answer thereto. The case was heard by this court October 22, 1957.
Respondent now asserts that it stated at the hearing before us that it took án exception to the finding of the trial examiner, quotes the particular exception and states that counsel for petitioner at the hearing agreed that its objection on this point was improper. The appendix contains no exceptions to the trial examiner’s report, including Exception No. 26 now relied on in respondent’s petition for rehearing.
The danger of relying upon oral statements and upon claimed agreement with such oral statements, also orally stated, of which no memorandum is furnished the court is apparent.
The important question raised is whether the court has a right to rely upon the joint appendix filed in compliance with Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of this court effective May 1, 1956, 28 U.S.C.A.,
The purpose of the adoption^ of the rule as to the filing of appendices,, whether separate or joint, is that litigants and counsel shall have the advantage of presenting a condensed record for-the purpose of saving time and labor in. preparation and the expense of printing-voluminous transcripts of testimony.. *761The court is entitled to rely upon the appendix as presented. The rules of this court are liberal with respect to the filing of unprinted portions of the record as part of the appendix, even after the printed appendix has been filed. Under Rule 16(6), either party may file typewritten copies of such portions of the record as he desires at any time prior to the call of the case for argument; and such typewritten copies shall be considered as a part of the appendix. In this case respondent had some seven weeks prior to the hearing in the court to file such typewritten addition to the appendix but took no action. The petition for rehearing on this point has no merit.
In any event certain statements of respondent’s president made to two employees could properly be considered by the examiner and the Board as threats constituting coercion. Since the examiner and the Board so found, there was ample support for the conclusion that respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
All questions raised in the petition for rehearing have been considered. It is ordered that the petition be and it hereby is denied.