The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. National Labor Relations Board, and Insurance Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

FRIENDLY, Before KAUFMAN and HAYS, Judges. Circuit R. Circuit IRVING KAUFMAN, Judge: upon We called wheth- to determine present require here er the circumstances comply the union’s with for a list of the names and ad- bargaining in a dresses unit which the union is exclusive

bargaining representative.

I. Company of The Prudential Insurance Prudential) (hereinafter is en- America selling gaged in and issu- the business of annuity insurance contracts throughout The In- the United States. Union, surance Workers International Union), (hereinafter AFL-CIO the collective Agents of Prudential’s with- District extensive unit we shall in an 19,1967, September shortly describe. On charge the Union filed the Board stating refusing supply it a list of the names and represented, had committed Prudential practices violation unfair labor § (1) (a) (5) the National Labor Thereupon, Act. Relations the Board hearing complaint notice of issued refusing charging Prudential with bargain good answer, In its faith. refusing supply admitted requested list, but denied prac- action constituted an unfair labor tice. Washington, Ackerman, Jerome D. C. Subsequently, parties entered into (Thomas Haggard, Covington R. & Bur setting stipulation forth the relevant ling, Washington, C., brief), on the D. hearing, waiving facts and a Trial petitioner. for decision, filing excep- Examiner’s Spielberg, Washington, tions, argument Paul J. D. C. and oral before (Arnold Ordman, Counsel, approved stipu- Dom- General The Board Board. Manoli, accepted inick L. Coun- Associate General lation and case transfer sel, Mallet-Prevost, findings fact, Marcel Asst. General of law conclusions Counsel, Williams, B., Robert E. N. L. R. and the issuance of a decision and order brief), respondent. on the parties based thereon. After all filed briefs, tions this area into on November within districts, refusal Prudential’s with a district office located determined Additionally, each. in 228 of these Union with furnish the practice one or labor districts maintains list constituted an unfair 8(a) (5) offices, meaning and more “detached” which are ad- § ministratively Act, (1) of- ordered Prudential related the district they a list such fice the district in which are the Union with to furnish located; all, petitions upon request. Prudential there are 419 such de- order, tached offices. court to and set aside review cross-petitions for enforce- and 16,000 Each of the more than district on the Union intervened ment.1 The agents assigned within the unit is to one For the reasons of the Board. set side of these 897 districts or offices detached below, peti- deny Prudential’s forth we by maintained Prudential across review, grant the Board’s tion for and United States. The maximum number cross-petition for enforcement. agents assigned largest to the district forty-seven, office is num- maximum

II. assigned ber smallest detached Approximately office is four. 90% recognized Union Prudential has agents required by these are Prudential bargaining representa- exclusive report they to the office to which are agents bar- of its district within the tive assigned Tuesday mornings on for 1% gaining 1959, and the two have unit since Friday mornings 2 hours and on for 21/2 bargain- into collective entered successive meetings; to 3 hours for the remainder ing agreements The time. since that report frequently less because of difficul- agreements was most of these recent traveling place ties in from their of work September and will on executed to their or district detached office.4 The September remain in effect until agents spend the rest of their time working individually in field. dis- Prudential Although sought a se- Union by Union, agents represented trict curity negotiation each for clause agreement, extra- and covered bargaining agreement new collective ordinary every respect. As of the end Prudential, provision no has ever such 1967,2 year Union filed agreements. been included of their charge, approxi- unit consisted fact, 9,702 16,795 only In about 16,795 agents employed mately district agents or are 57.4% thirty-four plus states Prudential members, slight very increase city District of Columbia membership in 1959 when Toledo, pur- For Ohio.3 administrative 55.7% recognized opera- first as the poses, Prudential has divided stipulated jurisdiction This unit has been to consider 1. The court’s appropriate purposes parties petitions to be of the Act. from 10§ derived bargaining. collective following are as of statistics 2. All of the Approximately re- specified. 90.4% unless otherwise that date port de- to their offices twice a week as report only Alabama, California, above; another are: scribed 3. The 34 states 7.6% Friday Delaware, meetings; Colorado, Connecticut, attend Flori- 0.6% meetings Indiana, Iowa, month; Illinois, da, Georgia, attend Kan- twice a 0.8% Mary- Maine, meetings month; Louisiana, Kentucky, sas, once attend 0.6% only Missouri, specifically Massachusetts, Michigan, land, so. when to do Jersey, agent Nebraska, Hampshire, the office Each maintains a desk at New New Oklahoma, assigned, Carolina, York, which he is free to which he is North New Island, Pennsylvania, Oregon, In the first Rhode to utilize at other times. year Utah, employ, Tennessee, Carolina, are addi- their Ver- South weekly tionally required Washington, mont, Virginia, attend train- and West Virgina. office. sessions at the agents’ bargaining representative. More- names agents addresses of the nonmember over, the distribution of through members, Union members in the unit throughout highly uneven; the unit these efforts have been unsuccessful. fact, in offices, 221 of the district and detached Accordingly, August 23, 1967, 2,243 approximately to which president Union’s vice wrote assigned, district have again requesting list, that it furnish the Union members. urging that such information was addition, In “necessary the rate of turnover of and relevant to the Union’s performance district within the and fulfillment of its statu- year. per tory unit is about functions and duties as collective 25% example, approximately hired of all these agents, 4,241 employees.” new while The letter went on to ex- agents plain other Un- were terminated. The that because of the nature of the experiences unit, ion a similar annual turnover composition membership; in the of its * * * list, without such a the Union 1967, 2,455 gained in approximately Agents by cannot advise all covered the members, losing approximately new while Agreement as to the benefits offered membership. of old its Agreement, gain the cannot In to contrast the size of Prudential participa- them the information and bargaining and the necessary police extensiveness tion and relevant to relatively Agreement through- the is It small. and enforce the organizations has 178 local union in the sup- out unit or adherence and encompassed by bargaining port necessary area representa- unit. for their Substantially tion, or, general, all of Prudential’s district in cannot in in detached offices are with- effective manner communicate with jurisdiction Agents in the of one of these local the District who the bene- unions, represent statutory obligations which also the em- ficiaries ployees companies bargaining representative. of other insurance as collective agents. well as Prudential The Union * * * is, [T]his information addi- employs only organizers, ten full time tionally required and relevant at the present time, when the Union is en- have, all whom en- been gaged in activities unrelated to Pruden- gaged in collective with tial. Company Agreement; for a new and should position thus be in a to III. inform represented all recognition At various times since governed its Agreement orally requested in the Union has negotiations, as to the course of the supply that Prudential a list and to understanding solicit their district names and addresses participation bargaining proc- agents in In unit. ess, including their well informed con- writing, request it submitted a similar upon any pro- sideration and action necessary explaining: to “Such list is * * * posed Agreement. new accomplish effectively enable us to our responsibilities bargaining agent, Again, as the request, Prudential refused the bargain effectively claiming and to for our next policy that its dis- way practicable contract. There is any organ- close such information as to purpose. communicate with these ization Apparently by mail, geographical realizing than because requests that further to Pru- expanse equally futile, the collective dential would be the Union consistently sought unit.” by instituting Prudential has re- aid from Although comply. practice fused to proceeding at various the unfair labor now attempted to obtain times before us for review. adequate IV. alternative means com- municating acknowledged Since the unit, nonmembers as well as members. stipulation its the names and ad- support argument, of this dresses all the district suggests open four such alternatives are in unit who are Union members boards, grievance the Union: bulletin possession, of contention the real bone committees, hand-distribution communi- obligated upon is whether cation, meetings. and union We shall supply infor- it with similar consider them in that order. mation as within the unit are not who Union members. 1. Bulletin Boards. Under the bar- gaining agreement currently effect, beyond question It is now past agreements, and under each of the bargain good imposed duty faith permitted the Union to maintain a 8(a) upon employer by (5) includes § bulletin posting appro- board for the obligation employees’ provide an priate materials in each of the 897 dis- statutory bargaining representative with trict and bargain- detached offices necessary and rele information that actually unit. The Union maintains proper performance of vant offices; bulletin boards in g., Acme In duties. E. N. L. R. B. v. and in the 21 such offices where none of dustrial member, is a Union ; (1967) B. v. 17 L.Ed.2d 495 N. L. R. arrangements Prudential has made en- Mfg. Co., Truitt U.S. abling post the Union to its notices. (1956); Fafnir 100 L.Ed. 1027 argues virtually Prudential that Bearing B.,R. 362 F.2d 716 Co. v. N. L. agents all of the required district are to (2d obligation ap And this report to their district offices at least plies information with much as force meetings, once or twice a week for by needed Union for the effective the provide bulletin boards the Union with a administration of a collective reasonably adequate means of communi- agreement already to informa in force as cating agents with the on matters rele- negotiation tion in of a new relevant the performance duty vant to the as contract. N. L. R. B. v. Acme Industrial bargaining representative. their Bearing supra; L. Fafnir Co. v. N. agree We must with the Board that B., supra. stipu upon R. Based the facts bulletin such boards in are this case in- parties, found that lated adequate. restricting In addition to the Union the information degree some the substantive nature of necessity rele met these and standards post material and vance; determin Prudential claims both reserving right to Prudential to re- ations were erroneous. any notices, move unauthorized the col- Necessity A. bargaining agreement expressly lective argues prohibits that the with fervor the use of these bulletin boards no it Union has need for the list because “to distribute material kind.”5 agreement provides: 5. The b. Notices of union elections and Article XVIII—Bulletin Boards results thereof. During period Agreement appointments. tlie of this c. Notices of union Union, Employer permit meetings, d. will Notices of union with * * * purpose a board of brief to maintain bulletin reference to the thereof. * * * size, Notices, documents, moderate in each of the e. or other ma- Employer’s offices district and detached terial authorized International * * * * * *, provided Union, provided the unit that such * * * notices, the notices and announce- documents and other material are governed posted re- ments to be thereon shall be and nature of interest to the Agents area, provided stricted to: the said copy a. recreational further Notices of union that a each such author- posting Employer ized social affairs. is sent at adequate grievance result, are not The Union has no the boards established As a agents any infor- committee in the 221 district de- to communicate complex agents lengthy read tached to be offices none of or where mation too because, appropri- explains, quickly is a must Union member more but time, Moreover, period or ately to do for a been unable so. studied be opinions permitting poll or solicit their contract Union to es- objectives, ad- tablish such committees contract does author- about ministration, matters. ize them to related have contact or with agents’ except Furthermore, nature utility purpose processing griev- substantially reduces the individual work of com- ances. as a means office bulletin boards all the almost munication. Since 3. Hand-Distribution Communication only required in their offices suggests be that since a relative- (and ly the remainder fewa hours a week small number of are attached often), report and their time even less each district and detached offices meetings, company up there taken within the hand distribution of mes- highly probable sages it is accomplished could short be posted time, notice at all. provides will not see “by therefore agents spend Moreover, because impractical” means method of communi- working alone, there is believe, rest of time their cation for We Union. they of Union learn contrary, entirely little likelihood will the Board was might co-workers, justified finding news their hand distribution expected case highly impracticable be a route for this proximity. together working close relatively union to travel in at- small tempting to communicate the well col- Committees. Grievance 16,000 agents represents. over bargaining agreement permits the lective grievance suggested com- To one follow Prudential’s tech- to establish nique, mittee, composed required three be to of more than would post agents, at one in each district. Such least at each of committees, “the in to ef- claims are 897 Prudential offices order Prudential Also, be- fect such a distribution. cannot normal of communication we channel ignore employees” re- with the fact that the bar- tween and collective a union gaining agreement gard expressly prohibits contract administra- to of matters any distributing any expressing opinion on the Union from material tion. Without conducting any grievance in or Union adequacy committees other the of activities relationship, ordinary employer-union within Prudential offices.6 And well an agree in in over half of these offices are located we must buildings having extraordinary bargaining these no unit tenants separate grievance for are insufficient entrance Prudential em- committees ployees.7 addition, suggested of purpose In almost half Prudential. provides: agreement 6. The is transmitted from same time it XIX—Union Article Union office. International Employer used Activities 2. board shall not be The bulletin agrees that neither 1. Union or members distribute The will, any members in the Em- Union nor its of kind. material ployer’s offices, agrees grievance for union member- solicit ship, dues, upon will, union ma- or collect distribute of committee kind, trial, circulars, Employer, promptly literature from bul- or remove any notices, business ac- or other union or or conduct letin announcements board tivities in said offices. violates which other material provisions griev- If of this Article. 897 offices within Of Prudential’s the ma- ance fails to remove committee buildings are located reporting day the terial the next before tenant, only is the sole Employer do so. having buildings sepa- others are employees. for its rate entrance outside offices, separate Prudential has not even be aware that there is a union parking physical representing them, negoti- lot. obsta- Given these or that it has cles, nigh agreement im- we believe would be well ated a collective possible behalf, the Union to reach all in their prepared or that it is rights within means of hand ensure that their under it are se- distribution its communications. cured. appears It to us Union’s need Meetings. 4. Union in- for the names and addresses of mem regular sists that since the Union holds represents great bers of the unit it is far meetings members,8 for its it could then er here than inwas Standard Oil Com communicate with nonmember pany California, W. O. Inc. v. N. L. believe, however, unit. We B., (1968), R. 399 F.2d 639 where the that there was substantial evidence Ninth showing Circuit found a sufficient which the Board could that this conclude necessity require suggestion anything pragmatic. but supply such In information. Standard 1967, 7,093 In with- Oil, the facts relevant to need bore simi members, in the unit were not Union larity to those in except the instant case many assigned of them to offices were employees that the number in the unit having no union members. Unless the (approximately 1,500 was much smaller persuade Union would be able 16,795), instead geographic area large nonmembers travel distances encompassed by the unit was com also regularly meetings, attend its scheduled paratively insignificant (five or six highly unlikely, which seems it would counties in California rather than more meetings special have to conduct states), than worked undertaking to reach them —an infeasible together shops, and the turnover rate for this Union. extraordinary. was not lastly urges that even Prudential cautions us if that we sustain if each these methods communica finding the Board’s of need for the list tion, separately, considered contains some us, on the record before we will in effect defects, ag or inherent limitations sanctioning per se rule union that a gregate, they provide reasonably do ef always entitled to such information. communicating fective means of quite contrary We believe is true. within the unit who “even view the unusual nature of this mildly being reached.” interested bargaining unit, a reversal of the Board’s finding would be argument, similarly This is without a tantamount decla suggested merit. of Since each sought ration that the information here achieving totally methods is deficient cannot under circumstances nec objective reaching of the nonmember essary union, to a a not result even Pru agents, aggregation their cannot cure urges adopt. dential us to problems the defect. addition to the B. Relevance by geographic dispersion caused the vast of the of nature Prudential claims also that Board agents’ habits, little holding work which afford erred as a of matter law in that among opportunity for communication the list of names and of

them, cope with the also must in the unit was relevant to the Union's high extraordinarily of bargain- rate turnover of fulfillment of its duties as their membership representative. in the Pruden unit. Since It asserts that customarily tial its new does advise truth the Union seeks this information they spe may about the Union unless in order that it solicit new members agents may cifically inquire, new within the unit. organizations 8. The Union’s local hold authorized the International’s Execu- every membership meetings monthly, tive Board. frequently months, three or less when so 84 pertinence obliging employ find no error in the Board’s of

We before g., er infor determination that disclose. E. L. B. Acme N. R. v. Co., supra (information the exclusive Industrial mation relevant. As con was cerning employer’s of movement of cer unit, machinery plant); the Union has tain out of N. its L. duty fairly represent Mfg. Co., supra (infor statutory the R. B. v. Truitt concerning employer’s profits); non more than mation interests B., Bearing supra the Union mem Fafnir union as well as v. L. Co. N. R. 335, Moore, study Humphrey (independent 375 U.S. bers. v. union of com time (1964); pany operations). 363, types 370 84 11 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Certain information, wage per R. R. of Steele v. Louisville & Nashville such data as taining employees L.Ed. 165 89 is S.Ct. Company (1944). considered 173 Standard Oil so central to the “core B., California, O., employer-employee relationship” L. Inc. v. N. R. W. that being supra. obligation, presumptively coexten This been held to be rele Although sphere of activities vant. sive with the the ultimate standard relevancy cases, representative, ex exclusive the same in all regard negotiation wage to the of new contracts to information of the data tends type, employer to the administration col also the burden bears agreements already adopted. showing It lective a lack of Curtiss- relevance. dispute Wright etc., B., beyond Corp., manifest v. N. R. 347 F. seems L. discharge obligation (3d 1965); its 2d cannot 68-69 Cir. Interna B., Corp. is able to communicate with tional Tel. and Tel. L. unless v. N. R. Thus, (3d denied, 1967), its acts. 382 F.2d those in whose behalf 366 cert. Cir. to inform must be able L.Ed. union U.S. S.Ct. negotiations employees (1968); 2d its Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. B., (1st their as to and obtain views v. L. R. N. 223 F.2d 58 priorities in order position may In reflect their wishes. request kind of information deed, sought par the information ed the Union in this case has an even ticularly Union at relevant to the more fundamental relevance than that request, it was then time its last presumptively considered relevant. The engaged negotiating agreement a new latter needed the union in order to Further, in order with Prudential. bargain intelligently specific issues existing agreement effec administer an employees. concern to the But data with tively, apprise union must be able out which a union cannot communi even employees to which benefits represents cate with whom it they under the contract and are entitled is, by very nature, fundamental compliance to enforce readiness expanse relationship entire of a union’s agreement protection. for their with the employees. with the In this instance it urgent bargain so exclusive reject legally untenable We ing representative Prudential’s contention that perform range statutory its broad of is not entitled list of names and to a the truly representative duties in a fashion employees it in the unit harmony employees’ and in with the de represents establish that unless it can sires this infor and interests. Because specific the information to a is relevant basically mation is so related therefore union re When a function. proper performance of the union’s quests not ordi information is duties, statutory any special we believe narily performance as relevant showing specific would be relevance representative, is but which superfluous. alleged to have become because so peculiar circumstances, complaint have the courts Prudential’s Union quite showing properly special may required use this information to solicit new

85 outweighs simply is of no minimal within the inconvenience members having appro- supply has so moment. As Board it. indicated, priately no clear dis- there is petition denied, The is for review informing nonmember tinction between application cross enforcement it has obtained about the benefits granted. Board’s is order hopes in the for future secure sup- of their them and its solicitation FRIENDLY, Judge (dissent- Circuit case, port. In union solicitation is ing) : where, hardly especially an itself evil — already here, as union the exclusive is If the real issue here whether the were em- help needed from Prudential soliciting. Moreover, ployees. communicating it is con with district propriety Supreme upheld cerning negotiations Court has contract and admin employer requiring an istration, might a Board order pass Board’s order ad- a list the names and test, although submit the substantial evidence eligible employees to vote possible margin. dresses the narrowest While representation in a facilitate my election to put the for brother case Kaufman participating could, unions anyone solicitation persuasively the order as Wyman-Gor- N. L. election. R. B. v. come The char doubts to mind. Company, “relatively don S.Ct. of the Union as acterization 23, 1969). (April 22 L.Ed.2d 709 description a curious of a small” seems And, is established body the law well having as some members stranger adequate no where a union and thousands of Prudential1 reaching unrepre- means of alternative companies.2 If more of other insurance attempting or- sented em smallness relates the Union’s ganize, un- must allow the organiz ployment “only ten full time pur- premises ion for solicitation on the ers, have, all of been whom poses. g., H N. & L. R. B. v. S Gros- E. engaged to Pru in activities unrelated 1967); (2d singer’s Inc., 372 F.2d 26 dential,” choice, and that was the Union’s B. & Wilcox see L. R. v. Babcock N. why special I fail to entitled to see 100 L.Ed. U.S. The Gen consideration on that account. (1956). It is clear to us the inade eral Counsel’s concern about stronger ground on Union here is far quacy appears to be of bulletin boards Grossinger’s. than in mem limited to offices with no Union ; offices bers he concedes that “in those Lastly, that Prudential we note (and members where Union does have opposing valid has little reason committee), grievance mate therefore Supplying Board’s order. posted rial on bulletin board is sure burden; hardly en list an onerous during read, may to be discussed disruption employees’ tails no such meetings work at such breaks and outside allowing ordinarily work as is involved arrange.” as the wish to organizers per premises or union Hence via the the Union can communicate mitting experts an union to make inde of the non bulletin boards with 68.4% operations. pendent study time agents. member 87.6% utility sum, we believe immediate Again accepting the I see warrant clearly statement, sup- self-serving information to the Union’s figures opinion membership num- are the to four times its amounted membership have consented to a of members who at Prudential. ber record does of union dues. The check-off may 3. While be the bulletin boards not how more are disclose not distributing be ma- used as a method members. readily terial, they indi- can be used to appeal brief cate can The General Counsel’s where material be obtained. in Union’s that 1966 the total indicates 86 to stipulation, “un- count-

ported that it is needed the names and addresses grievance company propaganda er that there was committees able” to establish organization “necessity for union any and detached 221 district at of the representation.” no inti- au- Here there is has none offices where offices, practiced mation has And these that Prudential thorized a check-off. activity. only repeated, anti-union contain it 12.4% agents. my dissent is that we occasion The engage proceed foregoing self-deception when is meant in we None of the objec- of com- on the that the Union’s real that Union’s basis indicate means request of Prudential tive is what its with the nonmember munication require professed. point where The does not There comes a ideal. law were judges ignorant they in the as Even context we “should not be that be. should organizing campaign, Indi- it is not an what we know as men.” Watts v. of an 49, 52, 1347, 1349, ana, practice 69 unfair for an 338 U.S. S.Ct. labor organizers (1949) of Mr. (opinion to locate the em- 93 L.Ed. 1801 force union Frankfurter). ployees them with- Justice The Union wants and communicate with property employer’s or the names and addresses of the out access to the him, poll proposals help not NLRB v. Babcock them about contract 105, grievances to en- 76 679 or to service their but & Wilcox 351 U.S. S.Ct. gage membership. (1956), except “the location of in solicitation when active plant living quarters of em- Three facts suffice to establish this. One and the beyond employees ployees place is that the absence evidence period union efforts to com- the Union reach of reasonable entire 1959 when them,” at became the Pruden- municate with situation, agents, That which its mem- 76 at 685. tial it has ever consulted S.Ct. respect approximately nonmem- found to exist with bers or the 150 we has, employees H in NLRB S & Gross- hotel v. bers whose names addresses (2 inger’s, Inc., proposals;4 respect 29-30 Cir. in- to contract F.2d where, 1967), present in stipulation as here indicates that deed the Wilcox, Babcock “the usual methods members & Union communicates its available,” imparting only year, except for information mail twice a about monthly publication sending addi- at 351 U.S. at them its special The tion to the ones made available “The Insurance second Worker.” agreement. by the the Union conducted collective manner held, denying campaigns non- This enforce- its to obtain court 1964-66 through company ment to remedial order that a member names and addresses and their dis- furnish a list communications with members. Its union, the union’s and its trict Union officials and detached governed coverage campaigns The Insur- entitlement to such list is governing explicitly that considerations similar to those ance Worker stated employer’s non-employee to an desired the names reason the Union access property. Textile Union v. of new members Workers facilitate recruitment (1967); NLRB, among in the unit. 388 F.2d 905-906 NLRB, rejection by Sportswear see Decaturville Co. v. third out-of-hand (6 Finally I Prudential’s 406 F.2d Cir. Union of Board and the agree suggestion this Union has need is cannot at all if the Union’s claimed, anything the order persuasive like a case as Board what and the California, Company appropriately limited to Standard Oil should be O., NLRB, (9 which the F.2d W. Inc. v. kinds of communication 1968), the union showed referred. where Union’s subjects Although and the taken strike vote on these bers to ratified, meet- taken at Union has had contracts have been votes and actions only ings. mem- allows Union Constitution

87 course, to in- desire them at the Union’s ex- the Union’s Of pense. Congress pro- proportion of mem- such a its rather low deemed crease elections, entirely worthy satisfactory do one. But I for union cedure is an bers Labor-Management required Reporting to be and Dis- not understand Prudential achieving goal 1959, 401(c), closure Act of and this § assist long making stipulated exception to its constituted the limit of the fed- an * * * “policy practice erally imposed duty corporation to refuse in- proxy supply of names and list volved in a Rule disclose or contest. SEC Agents any or- 14a-7. addresses of District ganization seeking list such subject There is another I would still purpose.” Down Little Rock Cf. ask the Board consider on remand. 1286, towner, Inc., 1308-09 145 N.L.R.B. repre- While we are told that this ease modified, (1964), F.2d 341 enforced as situation, unique sents a other unions (8 1965). order The Board 1020 Cir. likely are not to find it so. The Board Wyman- recently in NLRB v. sustained involving reviewing is thus itself and 1426, Co., 759, 394 U.S. 89 S.Ct. Gordon litigation in a mass of new which courts (1969), was based 22 L.Ed.2d 709 delays will add to the unfor- that have power, of the National under 9 Board’s § tunately marred its administration of a Act, repre to conduct Labor Relations speed particularly under statute nothing elections; in that case sentation See, important. g., Bryant Chucking e. indi “rule” or in the Board’s Excelsior NLRB, 565, Grinder Co. v. 389 F.2d 572 practice unfair labor cates that it is an (2 1967) (dissenting opinion Cir. help a certi for an to decline Judge Anderson), denied, cert. 392 U.S. membership union fied increase its 908, 2055, 88 20 L.Ed.2d 1366 S.Ct. handing and addresses over the names Carpets (1968); v. NLRB World New employees. York, Inc., (2 403 408 Cir. F.2d I therefore remand At minimum would Supreme Now that Court has taken why explanation order an this case mounting note of criticisms suggests would not limited as Prudential Board for failure to utilize the rule-mak Phelps legitimate needs. meet union ing APA, procedures of NLRB see v. NLRB, 177, Dodge Corp. 193- v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 765, 394 U.S. at 89 (1941), 845, 1271 85 L.Ed. (plurality opinion at 1429 fn. 3 S.Ct. justifies direct amply I would also this. Board, Fortas),5 Mr. Justice will not the why, explain ef- in order to the Board to long last, recognize desirability of at purposes policies of the fectuate the proceeding in that manner a new field Act, necessary treatment, that cries for rather than such required to turn over the names painful continue and time-consum rather of nonmember adjudication? simply task of individual mail Union communications than (2 1967) ; cited, Cir. McLeod on Behalf of criticisms there In addition to the Co., 316 N. L. R. B. v. General Elec. 257 P. W. Prods. NLRB v. A. see ; 1963); Op F.Supp. 690, (S.D.N.Y.1966) (2 n. 14 708 904-906 Cir. F.2d NLRB, Peck, Critique erating Engineers A of the National Labor v. 353 Local 49 Policy ; (D.C.Cir.1965) Board’s Performance NLRB Relations F.2d 856 Adjudication Weaving Co., Majestic Formulation: and Rule- F.2d v. (1968). Making, (2 1966); v. Penn NLRB 117 U.Pa.L.Rev. 859-861 Closures, Inc., F.2d Cork &

Case Details

Case Name: The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. National Labor Relations Board, and Insurance Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: May 2, 1969

Citation: 412 F.2d 77

Docket Number: 33069_1

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.