Sinclair Refining Company v. National Labor Relations Board

COMPANY, REFINING SINCLAIR Petitioner, RELATIONS LABOR

NATIONAL BOARD, Respondent.

No. 19282. Appeals

United States Circuit. Fifth

July 26, 1962. precedents spec ancient or the most overruling

tacular of them name. consequence Neither has it been the legislation. brought new What has judicial about is recent declaration intervening congressional of an judicial which in turn calls now for adaptation and accommodation. Broth Chicago, erhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Ry. Co., 1957, River & Indiana 30, 40, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d problem The extent is the to which the may coercive sanctions the Board discovery weapon used as a proc- in the essing of a under arbitration a collective bar- gaining agreement. intervening regarded by portentous event us as is the Supreme action of the in the triology concerning judicial enforce- agreements ment of to arbitrate.1 is; area, In this the Board’s order adjudication an awesome the em Abercrombie, Davis, Tom John B. M. ployer guilty is aof unfair Houston, Burch, Jr., Tex., V. R. Clarence practice labor good for failure to Botts, City, Musser, Baker, D. York New Noncompliance with such Coates, Houston, Shepherd Tex., & produce inferential order to data in the counsel, petitioner. for pending course of a proceed ing brings weight Mallet-Prevost, to bear Marcel Asst. Gen. Board, B., Manoli, enforcement, Counsel, L. Dominick L. the full N. R. prestige Appeals. Counsel, of a Court of B., N. Gen. L. R. in Assoc. Samuel This cludes, course, Singer, Atty., B., Washing- M. N. L. R. imminence of judgment contempt. ton, C., Rothman, Cf. D. Cone Broth Stuart Gen. Coun- Contracting ers 1956, sel, Seymour Strongin, Attorneys, B., Co.v. N. R. L. Na- 235 F.2d Board, Relations tional Labor spondent. for re- Ironically enforcement here TUTTLE, Judge, Before Chief produce the Board’s order data for use BROWN, Judges. RIVES Circuit prosecution pending griev in the ance will make pro be to BROWN, Judge. JOHN Circuit ceeding largely superfluous. For en tide, said, judicial Time waits for forcement will be a no declaration may man. Neither acknowledge law. Union’s, does we Employer’s, For in terpretation in all likelihood the of the contract is the correct just result of guise this decision different from one. But as a under the Court, just years determining arbitrability, would been may what it ago. five have not de brought merits, What has this about termine neither adjudicate the slow but sure erosion cherished Board 1. United Steelworkers of America v. U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Manufacturing Co., 1960, American United Steelworkers of America v. En- terprise Corp., 1960, U.S. 80 S.Ct. Car Wheel & United Steelworkers of America v. War L.Ed.2d 1424. Navigation rior & Gulf determining employees Pipe Department guise relevance under sought. Be- violation of the contract. For reasons data pertinency of the any present moment, that are not of review clashes order cause the grievances spell achievement undertook to out that effectual of arbitration, contractually not be this was the of result contractual of wrongful assignment allocation or of enforced. both, workers, Replace- work or in the or through running course, Of Department. ment Pool and the Labor acceptance of problem the whole is this Employer position To this the took the obligation to bar principle that the adheres, immediately, it still to which 2 duty good gain faith includes proposed that since this demotion was rele employer to the union furnish to work, occasioned lack the con- representative ef data to enable vant troversy intrinsicially subject was not to bargain fectually for the workers. to grievance procedure' review under the Mfg. Co., 1956, 351 Truitt N. L. B. v. XXXI,4 because under this Article was 1027 100 L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. management solely matter committed to 1035); (and N. L. L.Ed. 100 annotation Employer decision.5 But the was careful Co., Cir., v. R. B. 1956, F. W. Woolworth point then, now, to out that its con- and reversed, 235 F.2d tention went to the merits of the dis- Also, 261, 1 235. pute. then, now, It did not nor does it duty terminate with does not the signing challenge arbitrability. position Its sim- con of the collective ply controversy stated is that while the through the life It continues tract. properly is matter for determination necessary agreements to it is so as far grievance on its merits con to administer the enable the grievances the action disputes.3 of a or kind committed and was sole- tract resolve mangement ly having to with the Union the collective bar- In accordance with right challenge question no to or init gaining the Union and contract between any way. prior steps When as the Employer, a written was Employer exhausted, are acknowl- April complaint 1960. The filed on edges subject demotion of that announced two to ar- was 2. “For 3. J. ment, N. L. R. ligation and other' International Woodworkers v. Local Unions 6-7 Elevator bargain collectively ployment, ** S. numbers, To “The Union Swift N. L. R. I. F.2d 956. facilitate faith with 253 F.2d Case Co., any question “Management’s Rights Co., e. or the B. v. Item F.2d “ARTICLE terms and purposes 29 U.S.O.A. g., Co. v. N. B., recognizes discussion 149; [1], 483; Cir., 1960, Cir., 1953, negotiation is the facilities have been N. L. N. L. arising thereunder, conditions L. R. XXXI U.S.App.D.C. 6-122, the bracketed 277 F.2d 158(d). R. B. wages, hours, R. B. * * * * B„ section, Cir., 1955, inserted. AFL-CIO operation confer America, v. John of em- the di- v. Otis agree- 641; ob- 5. The Board to discriminate lieve however, ladc working agreement; ther, added) discharges fere failure rectiou discharge rogatives of this posed set tron Puerto turing Co., ^[1] otherwise forth in Union and pursuant this section shall not act employees agreement, work, that right the Union’s and arbitration machinery. shall has Rico, this section good [2a] working to the NLRB against agreement.” from duties good faith, held that is not hire, to assert Employer; among such ^{[3] [4]} 1214, 1225; Jacobs Manufac seniority subject NLRB forces, any ^[2] suspensions will sufficient cause subject clause of this provided, if as elsewhere right suspend not be used member of because of the action (Emphasis sole provided, including to inter- Article not a Tex pro fur- pre- re- or following arises, no thus effort anee bitration.6 There is arbitrability questions raise must be followed:” Lodge v. Iron No. etc. Cameron While the first Cir., 1961, Works, Inc., 5 292 F.2d steps, May 2, two Refinery Employers Lake Union of Employer demanded that the furnish “all Co., 5 Charles Area Cir., 1959, Continental Oil records that reflect or to reflect” the tend like. 268 F.2d or the following information: Employer equally positive “ has made ** the amount of absolutely pro- it does not decline jobs separate work hours for the performed by contrary, duce the data. at On the each pipe department every posi- stage, a it has reaffirmed year past for the to date.” produce “ tive commitment whatever the * * (2) placement the requires. arbiter But consistent with its assignments job of all re- and/or interpretation, says views on it contract placement pool employees Jan- from arbitrator, that is for it the the uary 1, 1960, to date.” “ * * * determine the and make need (3) the work hours the demand. assignments separate job for the management alone was to determine tion in of the contract. lack of work” subject suspension under demotion of an ^[2] In a was, Article nutshell, handling to arbitration. as or clause inas discharge XXXI, the and arbitration clause” However, employee [2a] clause Employer’s grievance note In other stated, “subject referred to “because of ^[3] was layoff supra, was not conten- words, that or in a though that letter demand is needed so we can papers.7 the demand covers a cessively burdensome, Concerning labor 1960 to or grievance compliance further the contention is no department May 2, processing stated, the data with the I960].” intelligenty [from “This large it demand of same.” Al- requested, January 1, to settlement longer urged information volume plain evaluate was ex- that whether and, there was lack of work Employer The declined to furnish this determination, nature ex- that, for data* the reason as it had con- rearrangement tent of the or reduction sistently stated, this announced demo- force. solely management’s tion was deci- Since, interpretation sion. under its Preliminary to the detailed outline of contract, the question the Union had no four-step procedure culminating management’s judgment that binding arbitration, goal work, there a lack there nowas grievance procedure was described: subject matter for determina- “It sought, is the sincere desire of both and therefore data even

parties grievances employee wholly if otherwise relevant was imma- fairly quickly settled as thereupon and as The Union terial. filed com- possible. Therefore, griev- regional plaint when director. There- performed In the Pipe was broad- work reflected ly Departments Replacement defined: “A is defined to or Labor or any regarding wages, Pool; segregating difference hours or after the 2400 time working 15,000, conditions between the from sheets would be nec- Employer essary hereto between the and an to collate the 2400 sheets with employee working agree- approximately orders; covered 4800 work fur- might any plant ment which arise within information ther would be needed to any region operations.” particular performed or within Ar- work show particular employees. ticle XVVI individual Employer 15,000 7. The estimated some time sheets were involved of which 2400 charge question words, filed the Union. In its Counsel after General question conceived the Employer threshold had violated to be: grievance cognizable (1), furnish “1. Was the refusal to as the griev- Describing requested failure the contract?” constituted a data By assigned answer ance and its reason Examiner, depart- pipe a “lack Trial of work in defense before the ment,” vigorously its Employer renewed the Board continued: data was

basic contention [Employer] “The contends that subject pertinent relevant or since authorized it the contract grievance determina- matter was not for unilaterally reductions to effect tion.8 work, thereby re- force for lack of moving from the cover- such actions Examiner, as report Trial The age of the contractual excluding rulings consistent his did and from the area col- prior practical con- indicating evidence bargaining. [Employ- lective the collective struction points Article XXXI of er] particularly Article agreement ‘ ** contract, reads: the Examiner XXXI, that demonstrated right employees from to relieve duty supply the the to that considered work, lack duties because of of are of the merits affected not data was among prerogatives of the sole the e., correctness grievance, i. the the * * Employer *.’ Employer’s inter- incorrectness repeat- He pretation Article XXXI. proviso of “From the fact that the undertaking edly not he was [2a], supra] that stated note in the fore- [see that merits of relative going to decide the to the Union clause reserves indicating grievance. grieve But without ever suspen- about the concerning done, or avail- discharges work how data and for cause sions but future, ability could have changes for the of work in not about tenure because bearing any possible upon determination work, [Employer] of lack ar- of the legal- dispute if the Union was not gues that not was intended that challenge ly the subject entitled to be matters would such work,” grievance the determination of a “lack procedure. contractual the Em- [Employer’s] Examiner nevertheless held that However, the con- duty supply ployer data. had a the equates ‘lack of work’ in struction Consequently, do following ‘alleged failure to so con- its clause the with Thus, [Employ- stituted failure to work.’ lack of Practically (or none ab- except- rationale would read the clause as er] it) grievance sence of For ing survived. procedure from the alleges exception any personnel of the conclusion that there action duty a furnish data was connec- be due to lack work. This legally perhaps provide tion with a a facile device for would open procedure bypassing under the in order contract to deter- altogether any per- mine whether the Union wanted to “set- “prosecute” grievance, tle” or action. We do not sonnel believe By par- issue head-on. de- intent met such was the that cision, particularly by supple- prop- We believe rather ties. that rehearing, report up mental on it faced clause in er construction proposition light provisions the basic of other data pertinent only [Employ- relevant and is that where the in the event personnel open lack the matter of work was takes some action be- er] reasonably longer Employer (a) also It no contended that burdensome. ad- unnecessary past any (b) data of work find it would not be of we vances cogency showing (a). work, pass future lack of on (b) supplying would data be un- * * alleged Thus, lack work cause of F.2d once it may controversy not contend assumed that over “lack [Employer] a dif- have taken of work” should could was matter which questioned by dis- but ferent action Item our pute undoubtedly decision under the would sustain the judgment discretionary is in Board’s whether there fact lack though attempt even work to show that the future be fore- proposed past, concerning told action is fact motivated the data past probably light would other considerations which throw some proscribed both contract. what had been done what might likely expected in the immedi- words, “In other Article while ate future. Others have reflected a like exempts XXXI from the liberality. L.N. R. B. v. Otis Elevator procedure any management decision Co., Cir., 1953, N. F.2d L. personnel take as what action to R. B. Manufacturing v. Yawman & Erbe in case Article lack of work that Co., Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 947. In In- from the does not remove procedure ternational Woodworkers of America any dispute, such as exists Local Unions 6-7 and 6-122, AFL-CIO v. here, actually whether there as to B., N. L. U.S.App.D.C. any lack of work. Court, sustaining conclusion, theOn basis of this crucial order wage toas traditional data while the Board found further data denying pro- enforcement as to sales and showing would be distribu- relevant motional information, apparently under- among departments tion of work distinguish took along to legal lines of probable the of amount work in the fu- relevance. Rejecting ture. the trying conten- tion that was it to arbitrate the recognize candidly But we must that matter, employer’s it also an held that in these cases where data willingness repeated griev- process to the existing resolving disputes yet —whether grievance through binding to ance arbitration was part pro- a of a as formalized “no to a defense refusal to in- furnish ceeding general bargain- not—or for or formation which a union in order needs ing purposes, the Courts have assumed bargain intelligently.” to enable it to proper (5) 8(a) it to resort is to a § practice unfair labor en- order to terms, then, In unmistakable the obligation force the Board, furnish data. in order to determine relevance That result would have pertinency followed without hence the amenabil- —and regard independent to, of, opera- ity such of evidence a coercive order to grievance machinery tion of the produce in a very to determine the is- —had pending formal which cul- will dispute. might sue in Whether Courts binding minate in arbitration. One past in the have enforced a Board order certainly having read that much in the consequences such direct is no B., Cir., 1958, I. Case R. longer J. Co. N. L. may decisive. We assume that assumption 253 F.2d 149. Back this they Actually, would. this situation has things likely two have been of posed. influence. squarely not been All of the Both of them we consider to be of no decisions have turned more on legal significance final for the situation general questions relevancy per- by presented our case. is tinency a mis- operational One in the sense of co- accepted proposi- on taken reliance gency. align This has led this Court to private of a tion decision arbi- with the itself earlier decision of though ostensibly binding ter, even adopt 4th Circuit to what was described parties, justify cannot violation of broad rule. N. L. R. B. v. as Co., Cir., 1955, Item rightful Act or oust Board of its N. L. Works, Cir., power v. B. Whitin Machine exclusive to effectuate paraphrase not But we it in terms of policies Act.9 .Or stage order, is supply There statute and here. failure to that even close may disposition data not final constitute a failure no indication ma- controversy Indeed, phrasing of this way, points up 'it in chinery terminate this it contract will intrinsic requires, permits, present or contradiction in or which decision: a decision contrary employer’s willingness practice by, acquiesces in a even to abide misguided faithfully carry out, a factor is con- The other the terms of his Act. bargain. tract application another well becomes itself a failure to will principle union’s waiver that a analysis recall must we un- implied, must clear but grievance is is involved in that what a mistakable.10 the claim collective party being breached one is is either speak of waiver To grievance-arbitration This or the other. begs question. meaningless po machinery is, therefore, one two relinquishment of purposeful is a Waiver means tential which this “right” right. The so-called a known resolved. The other is resort to tradi question basis the factual data —to aspect remedies. in this tional court For necessity on depends of “lack of work”— controversy, industrial the Board while is so because This contract. as a final available forum to achieve “right” data the Union has Congress, This resolution. is because disputes solve a contract or administer choice, has re matter deliberate 158(d), arising it, 29 U.S.C.A. § jected proposals which a breach of the contract the terms contract would unfair constitute an and, in a the solution will control both practice. Supreme given Court has sense, data. relevance of' broad a recent reminder this- fact. “The bill assump originally passed think that which the But we Senate longer making provision be made or acted contained no breach of regard bargaining agreement upon. must collective Now we an un light practice subject data-producing-order juris in the fair labor * * * encourage pervasive policy Board, the fullest diction of the by provision machinery conferring juris as well as a use disputes upon parties resolution diction for federal courts over suits bargaining agreements. arising violation of under the collective for collective every conference, however, do not rule out in We contract. decided to merely bargaining agreements Board sanction make collective resort to situation only dispute in pending un enforceable courts. ‘Once a contract because parties bargaining have made a completed in ma collective the contract contract,’ report stated, chinery. do conference But we hold proceeding not be used to enforcement of secure ‘the that contract should processes in a where deter usual use left data for of the law pertinency relevance and re not to the National Labor mination Relations H.R.Conf.Rep. 510, quires critical Board.’ sub No. determination 80th Cong., p. itself. 1st Sess. issue of 42.” stantive Charles Dowd 477; Co., N. L. R. B. v. B. v. 7 J. 9. R. International H. Allison & N. L. 1948, Cir., 1952, 698, ; Cir., 768, 766, F.2d N. R. B. 165 194 702 L. 6 F.2d cert. denied, Corp., Cir., 814, 1953, 31, 2 335 U.S. Aircraft 206 69 S.Ct. v. Bell 93 L. 235; Disney L. B. Ed. Cf. N. 1957, R. L. R. Walt 369. B. v. Lion N. v. Oil F.2d Productions, Cir., Company, 282, 293, 1944, 352 9 146 F.2d U.S. 77 330, 331; Armstrong 1 L.Ed.2d R. B. v. Pacific Intermountain Ex N. L. S.Ct. Co., Cir., 1955, B., Cir., 1954, press v. N. L. R. Cork Co. 5 8 228 F.2d 170. 211 Observer-Dispatch 843, Utica B., Cir., B. 1956, 10. N. L. R. v. Gulf Atlantic Ware See N. L. 229 F.2d v. 475, Co., 1961, 575, house 291 F.2d 576. 1962, Courtney, These main U.S. establish three cases Box Inc. v. things. First, 502, 483, 519, 489. since of contract L.Ed.2d a breach S.Ct. as such does an unfair not constitute factor a dominant This was practice, determination of such gave impetus the arbi real case ordinarily is not Board. for the agree making process such tration Second, disputes, resolution of these judicially virtue ments enforceable important as this is to maintenance 301, 29 Textile Work 185. § U.S.C.A. § ers ordinary of processes peace, industrial is for the Mills, 1957, 353 Lincoln v. third, of the law. And where 448, 912, 1 972. We U.S. L.Ed.2d 77 S.Ct. prescribed voluntary have synthesized and the of this the rationale grievance procedure for settlement subsequent “The decisions.11 three controversies,12 (a) Courts approach artic first Court’s the one fully (b) enforce stay them out Union v. ulated Textile Workers the determination of the intrinsic merits Mills, 448, 1957, Lincoln 353 U.S. S. guise determining under the arbi 912, Ct. trability. ** * empowers com courts to federal ‘ ** pel arbitration Supreme says What enforcing applied incapacity Judges relative applies type of arbitration was that reflected equal comprising force to those the Na our national labor laws.’ 363 U.S. tional Labor Relations Board. This page pages 577-578, at at springs unique from the nature of the congressional policy on the agreement bargaining collective some grievances settlement of is reflected § thing “more for, says than a contract” 203(d), 173(d). And ‘That U.S.C.A. § Court, generalized “It is a code to only policy can if the be effectuated govern myriad of cases which the parties for means chosen settle wholly draftsmen cannot anticipate.” ment of their a collec differences under 363 U.S. 80 S.Ct. 1351.13 “A collec bargaining given agreement is tive agreement bargaining tive is an effort page 566, play.’ 363 U.S. at S system erect a self-govern of industrial page Consequently .Ct. ment.” at 80 S.Ct. 1351. g., cases, run of And “the e. Wilko under a agreement collective very Swan, is at S.Ct. system heart of the of industrial ‘In 98 L.Ed. is not relevant. self-government. Arbitration case, commercial arbitration is solving means of molding the unforeseeable litigation. Here arbitra -substitute system private law for all is the substitute for industrial problems may the which ‘ arise and to * * * strife’; and arbitration of provide for their way solution in a which bargain disputes under collective generally will accord with the variant ing agreements part parcel of parties.” needs and desires of the 363 bargaining process the collective itself.’ 581, 80 U.S. S.Ct. 1352. “The labor page 578, 574, 1347, at 80 363 U.S. S.Ct. performs arbitrator functions which are ” * * * Lodge page 12, -at 1351. No. courts; to not normal the the considera Works, Inc., Iron Cameron etc. v. help judgments tions which him fashion 1961, foreign 116. at indeed be to competence the 12. 11. See note upon Relations the desirable method for U.S.C.A. upon “Final these cases § 203(d) adjustment by § Act, 1947, 1, 173(d): supra. parties of great Labor is declared to be 61 Stat. a method stress was laid settlement Management agreed 13. The grievance disputes arising plication page Warrior collective-bargaining U.S. are from United Steelworkers v. following & 574, 578-582, interpretation Gulf citations to volume and Navigation agreement. 80 S.Ct. of over the an Co., 1960, existing ^[*] ap- ” ^[*] 1352. Board reversed the Trial S.Ct. Examiner’s of courts.” U.S. finding employer guilty law that an source of was of a “The labor arbitrator’s provisions express refusal § to for failure confined not supply study contract, common certain time industrial data in con- as the grievance. industry pending practices nection with a of the law—the The way. shop equally part the collec Board described the case in —is although bargaining agreement “The Union’s tive involved a dis- pute concerning expressed interpretation in it.” 363 S.Ct. U.S. “ * * * * provisions parties expect *, contract the Union interpreting judgment particular giving his contract as grieve only equity will reflect what over says Employer’s] but, rates, [the bar insofar as the collective [Em- ” * * * agreement ployer] gaining insisting permits, that the Union in- correctly practical consequence. interpreting factors of other the contract. On using face, parties’ objective provides “For the the contract process primarily parties fur devised themselves settling goal uninterrupted disputes. Yet, ther their common instead of exhausting production agreement, proceed- under make agreement ing specialized within contract, serve their the framework of its charges asking needs.” 363 S.Ct. 1352. elected to file the Board to intervene and resolve the It is these factors which Court lead the dispute.” referring The Board, after conclude, judge “The ablest cannot 201(a), 29 171(a), U.S.C.A. § and § expected bring experience be the same 203(d), 12, supra, footnote trilogy competence upon to bear the deter- opinions Supreme requiring grievance, mination of a because he can- grievance machinery given similarly not be informed.” While Con- play, “If, reached this conclusion. in- gress has, course, presumably infused requiring stead of the Union in this expertise in the members of Labor give play’ case to ‘full respect Board with to matters committed procedure, permit we were to facil- jurisdiction, Teamsters, to its Garner provided by ities the Act to be used in Helpers Chauffeurs and Local bargaining avoidance agreement, 485, 490, 346 U.S. 74 S.Ct. frustrating we would policy the Act’s “expressly rejected L.Ed. it has promoting industrial stabilization to violations of col- through agree- collective * * bargaining agreements lective on, ments.” The Board went “In this Courtney, Dowd Box Charles Inc. v. case the Union informa- 7 L.Ed. support tion to over a matter 483, 490. 2d Those controversies are [Employer] maintained processes left “to the usual of the law.” subject of a not be the processes are, of the law course, * * *. There the contract thus arose either traditional court action or the between grievance machinery where established. interpretation of their contract *. dispute for This was a whose resolution Actually approach is not hostile to specifically provided the contract machin- policy which the Board itself has fol- ery [Employer] properly and the insisted exceptions. lowed with rare Certainly its agreed-upon settled within the complete most recent decision is in ac- grievance procedure.” And then the cord, in both the action taken and brought very supporting it down to the In Board nub of reasons. Hercules Motor Corp.,14 “Manifestly, controversy, , 136 NLRB the in- [No. our 145]— 161, Corp. AFL-CIO, America, 14. Hercules Motor and its Local International Automobile, United Aircraft 8-CA-2094. Case No. Agricultural Implement Workers 578 * * sought 1960, April 28, has taken Union which

formation Though older, place.17 bearing upon is the resolution no have could certainly hardly wiser, interpretation.” it and it is dispute contract over of this NLRB-,-. no nearer decision than it was when 136 15 parties squared first off. sweeping accept we Once The now to vol law commits principles must —established we—as 1, untary voluntarily by (note arbiters chosen cases three pro parties give applicat having decisions the most we to which supra), and impact upon stability, very found survival ion,16 demonstrates record wellbeing economic, here financial an we the rule which wisdom machinery business, employees, An or both. Under the nounce. having body 1, adjudicatory steps 2 ominous contract, dealing responsibilities matters completed 83 for with within to be and 3 had importance arbitration, step 4, Binding of transcendent substantive days. days surely to take with the law 60 be trusted within thereafter be Judges steps lawyers and would with which of arbiters the board submission to procedural inception enable that days. to final sub characterize as From 10 parties days permitted. The only tribunal do its work. 153 mission not, therefore, this, to their own devices the coercive left resort contrast adversary. brought mercy nor, worse, at the of the the Board has sanctions is not halt. In The industrial arbitration machine to a dead delays powerless. no it can meantime, We have doubt that inevitable judicial fashion suitable which review sanctions the administrative anniversary records, data, acquire information process, second Spielberg Corp., 930; report, citing 109 NLRB United Aircraft Telephone Board’s 1080, West, Manufacturing Go., 112 NLRB 112 NLRB Co. proper long 779, stated, forum is not the 1081, been Board “The Board “It has remedy alleged seeking recognize an and honor arbitration specific promote to obtain ‘desirable of contract or breach performance in order awards objective voluntary encouraging terms.” See also of its ” 140, Morley ; disputes’ Knight Corp., NLRB 11G labor National settlement “ * ** 434, stated, Dairy Corp., 126 NLRB a line there is Products ar * * substance, hold, 435, “It is cle similar. cases which * employer was concerned its ‘chan has satisfied where interpretation duty solely of their nelized’ *** ”; Morton Salt of a contract there bargaining duty “The Board has under the NLRB 119 further is no however, long held, it will not ef Act.” policies of the Act for it fectuate Broadcasting collective-bargaining agreements police v. Radio Broad Co. 16. Taft disputes No. by attempting Local Union to resolve over Technicians cast Cir., meaning Interna or administration their AFL- of Machinists Association in Crown Zellerbach echoed tional This was Hayes Corp., Corp., NLRB Textron Puerto CIO Rico, McDonnell F.2d 238. NLRB This is the time table: charge September 12, with Board filed complaint practice 27, 1960 Unfair October Hearing Examiner Trial November before Report April Trial Examiner Decision of October Appeals petition to Court of October Original record received November January 24, filed Printed record February-April filed Briefs argument May and submission Oral thought by employer to be the arbiters evidence action of an seek ing earnestly proper every for a determination essential to submit issue in dispute including the issue.18 relevance and neces — sity of data the—to may, it has done as ifBut does not these circum agency as upon an outside here, call stances constitute a failure to discovery information weapon for con- alternative which, of the one contract, com- will be of the structions Enforcement denied. proceeding superfluous, the whole pletely necessarily disrupted. The arbiters RIVES, Judge Circuit (dissenting). controversy The whole continue. cannot plant to the nearest from the then shifts Whether or not the Union was entitled hearing room, thereafter grieve Company’s over the determina- to the capital, then on nation’s work,” tion a “lack of it is nonetheless any Courts eleven one of seat true that both under the Act and under jurisdiction having geographical Appeals express terms of the contract employer. else Whatever over Union had show, could, it if giving play to the means is, it is that the helpers pipefitter demotions of the two parties. More than were in fact motivated other magnifies time, it introduces lost considerations, and that such action was hostility. now new For advocative adversary being against taken to discriminate them lists—the Gen- has entered the as members of the Union. The failure nature of who, from eral Counsel charge of the Union to that the demo- aligns complaint, himself one improperly tions were motivated or were Union—but who the adversaries —the discriminatory responsible is both general public protector of the a sort understandable, when we consider that it advocacy, pro must his interest advance upon did not have the information either con, cal- not in the manner best charges it could base such or from bring dispute, an end to but culated to charges which it could know that such lofty thought, from that in a manner untrue. were The Union’s letter to the general good. vantage, to be best Company’s Manager Assistant Plant C. worse, ends in that diversion Even Mallory requesting F. the information which, if it determines the sub- decision that, stated “This information is needed adversely Employer issue stantive intelligently so we can evaluate this Employer one leaves the as does this to settlement of adversary facing an additional —the processing or further of same.” Wheth- necessary This for the Board. makes any processing er further Employer to resist determination in grievance might include submission of get back matter order where it possible dispute to is, I laps started —in arbitrators. submit, step immaterial. That had not Employer must To do come to might been reached and never be courthouse, says reached court. But the the Su- the Union were furnished Court, if place preme not the to work out informa- disputes from which industrial when intelligently arbitration has prescribed grievance. been available. and is evaluate Employer points Chesapeake they 18. The have reasonable basis to believe Telephone germane & Potomac Co. West Vir- it will be to the case. In- ginia, (Harry Dworkin, deed, 21 LA 307 J. the arbitrator himself often ini- 1953); Enterprises, Inc., request production I. and Hirst tiates the for the (Jules 1954). Justin, LA J. Also El- evidence. other instances the ar- (2d ed.), request How kouri. Arbitration Works bitrator make the on the p. party 181: motion of the who otherwise does request ques- “Arbitrators do not hesitate to not have access to the evidence in production of data or information if tion.” both of all of the relevant adhered facts heretofore has This Court Company rule, Union. The Union and very announced first broad Farmer, study Guy claimed unless Chairman NLRB former requested information, “wage could not informa related and under which evaluate employees bar to determine pertaining in the request, upon be whether there was in fact a meritorious gaining should, unit agent bargaining to be submitted arbitration. to the made available think regard rela I that the Board’s order should be immediate to its without negotiation respectfully enforced, and administra therefore dis- tionship or agree bargaining sent. collective tion of the Relations Labor ment.” National 956, 1955, Cir., Itemv. Works, citing Machine 958, Whitin Cir., per curiam, 4 NLRB aff’d Gibson, Conley 593; v. 217 F.2d cf. S.Ct. Relations Labor National Co., 1956, 352 Woolworth Board v. F. W. 1 L.Ed.2d Batten, J. BATTEN Relations William and Katie M. National Labor v. J. I. Case Co. wife; Opal his Donald G. Becker and Board, 253 F.2d 149. Becker, wife; Campbell M. his Don T. being con- ground, such as No sound Campbell, wife; and Leta Mae his Er etc., secret, prejudicial, fidential, trade Horton, Margaret nest S. Horton and U. A. why proved has asserted been wife; s Ivan F. Huhs and Berna hi fur- not be Huhs, wife; should information dine M. his Thomas N. Lee Gladys Lee, follow-up ap- wife; Clyde M. letter his A. nished. Union’s Dorothy wife; Lewis, Lewis Edward Dale Moore and L. his appeal pears an to reason its to me “ Fay Moore, L. much we would assertion wife; Stephens his John W. and Vada open prefer honest and discussion Stephens, wife; Ralph his C. Weed disclosure of essential facts full Mary Weed, wife, Appellants, his T. attempt faith to reach a knowledge based on common settlement America, UNITED STATES of prob- the facts the common of all of Appellee. lem.” No. 6906. simply requires order The Board’s Company Appeals United make available to States Court of Tenth Circuit. request, upon information concern- ing: July 1962. Rehearing Aug. Denied “(a) separate hours Work Pipe jobs performed Depart- May 2, 1959, May 2, ment from “(b) job Placement as- and/or

signments replacement pool of all January

employees 1, 1960, from May 2, 1960. “(c) separate job hours and Work

assignments Depart- for the Labor January 1, 1960, May from ment

2, 1960.” faith collective

Good re-

quires knowledge understanding

Case Details

Case Name: Sinclair Refining Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 26, 1962

Citation: 306 F.2d 569

Docket Number: 19282_1

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.