*1 AMALGAMATED MEAT & CUTTERS BUTCHER AMERICA,
WORKMEN OF AFL-CIO, NORTH v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD et al. Argued No. 40. November 1956. Decided December Harold I. Cammer argued the cause filed a brief for petitioner.
Theophil C. argued Kammholz the cause for the National respondent. Labor Relations Board, him With on Rankin, the brief Solicitor were General L. Dominick Manoli Norton J. Come.
Judson Harwood argued the cause for the Lannom Manufacturing Co., respondent. him the With brief was Cecil Sims. Douglas opinion delivered
Mr.
Court. companion
This is a case to Leedom v. International Union, ante, p. 145, day. decided this International Fur and Leather Workers Union filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging respondent Co. had interfered with the of its rights employees guaranteed by the Act. This charge was filed
1In merged Amalgamated 1955 this union Meat Cutters & America, petitioner Butcher of North in this case. was issued based A April *2 Lannom hearing, At 1952.
charges
by
filed
affidavits
(h) 9 that certain
sought
prove
ruled,
examiner
The trial
false.
of the union were
officers
issue
that
practice,
accordance
The trial
proceeding.
litigated in the
could not be
remedial
appropriate
that an
examiner
recommended
he
which
practice
unfair labor
to correct the
order issue
trial
sustained the
general
The Board in
to exist.
found
Lannom,
against
order
examiner and issued
remedial
order,
B. 847. Prior to this
N. L. R.
103
requir-
action
taking
from
administrative
enjoined
been
9
to reaffirm
ing the union’s officers
D.
Workers,
App.
93
C.
Farmer
Electrical
U. S.
v. United
are
ruled,
211
the Board
“We
178,
Accordingly
F. 2d 36.
compli-
administratively
satisfied
Union
at
hereto.”
(h)9
all times relevant
with Section
ance
2.
B.,
847,
N. L.
n.
R.
against
an
returned
August
In
indictment was
an
Gold,
union, charging
Ben
officer of the
August
with the Board on
(h) affidavit which he filed
30,
false.
In 1954 Gold was convicted for
1950, was
offense.2
the Board ordered the union
Thereafter,
why its
under the Act
show cause
status
altered,
should not be
were removed from
unless.
Shortly
president.
The union
as its
office.
re-elected Gold
compli-
out
thereafter
the Board declared
108 N. L. R. B.
1191.
1190,
§9
ance with
Dis-
union then obtained from the District Court
preliminary injunction enjoining
trict
Columbia
altering
restricting
Board from
or
the union’s
by
Ap-
status
reason of Gold’s conviction. The
equally
by
an
divided
conviction was affirmed
sitting
States,
Appeals,
en
banc. Gold United
99 U. S.
App. D. C.
certiorari on October
We
1956.
peals Farmer v. Fur affirmed. & Leather App. D. C. 221 F. 2d U. S. sought stay
The Board preliminary injunction decision the Court of the Farmer stay case. When the denied, petitioned the Board below, pursuant the court (e) Act, § 10 enforcement of the unfair Respond- order. ent Co. moved for dismissal of the enforce- petition ment on the grounds Gold’s conviction for §9(h). The union intervened and opposed the motion to dismiss.
The court below dismiss, motion to that, falsity since the the affidavit had been proved, *3 requirements of 9 (h) § had not been met and no bene- fits should be accorded the granted union. We certiorari. S. 905. U.
As noted, in the unfair in proceeding was issued 1952, more than twelve months after the affidavit of August (h) provides Section 9 that no investigation shall be made or complaint issued on behalf aof union unless there is on file with the Board a non-Communist affidavit of each officer contemporaneously “executed or within the preceding twelve-month period.” no There was charge against for filing a false in Appeals difficulty by met presuming that a person who awas in Communist 1950 continued as through such through the critical date of Febru- ary 1952, in showing absence of change evidence in the factual situation.3 226 F. phase It was on this of Judge the case that Stewart dissented: has found that in 1950 Gold was both a Communist and a bluntly. indulge Yet presumption in the that he
was therefore a criminal offense a filing the 1951 affidavit is further than I can on the record 2d, before us.” 226 F. at 200. for conviction that Gold’s urged has also petitioner form no basis could
filing a false affidavit the affirmance of Gold’s decompliance prior below, of the decision At the time appeal. conviction appeal have noted,4 we District of As Columbia. his the affirmance of conviction. to review certiorari in Leedom v. reasons stated For the ante, that the sanction for conclude sole p. we is (h) the criminal of a false affidavit officer who files penalty imposed withholding of the union nor the decompliance specified the Act that are once the benefits Having concluded, so officers file phases unnecessary to the collateral we find it reach controversy. this
Reversed. Frankfurter, concurring. Mr. decompliance of the union is not agree that sanction presents But case another authorized that cannot be the due admin- consideration overlooked justice that, standing alone, istration of would lead Appeals. of the Court of As me to reverse dissenting opinion Judge below in the Stewart: *4 stated competent jurisdiction “A court of has found 1950, was false. The August 30, affidavit of date as to critical was the
National Labor Relations Act as amended L. B. complaint. N. R. date of issuance of complaint If had U. S. 375 .... Dant, during period twelve month while issued effect, question before false affidavit was us however, That, is not case. be clear cut. would 2, supra. Note “In August of 1951 Gold filed a non-Com- new munist it during period and was the effective of that affidavit that the this case issued. No has court found that affidavit to be false. It is true that the Board found in 1954 that the Union was time in with § Assuming power to make such a find- ing, assuming it be further considered finding that the 1951 it I false, must, think, supported, should be like any finding, Board by substantial evidence, considering the as record Indeed, whole. We have no such record before us. appears question or falsity truth of the 1951 affidavit has never been heard merits. [Footnote omitted.] has found that 1950 Gold both a Communist and a it bluntly. Yet to indulge in the presumption that he was therefore criminal offense a the 1951 affidavit is further than can us.” on the record before