Guy FARMER, as Chairman, Abe Murdock, Ivar H. Peterson, Philip Ray Rogers and Albert C. Beeson, as members of and constituting the National Labor Relations Board, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1955-02-15No. No. 12347

221 F.2d 862

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Board lacks authority under the National Labor Relations Act to deprive a union of its compliance status under section 9(h) based on false non-Communist affidavits filed by union officers, even if the union membership was aware of the affidavit's falsity. The District Court's preliminary injunction was affirmed.

The International Fur and Leather Workers Union challenged the National Labor Relations Board's attempt to strip it of compliance status under federal labor law after the union's president was convicted of filing a false non-Communist affidavit in 1950. The Board argued that because the union must have been aware of the falsity when the president resubmitted his affidavit in 1954, it could revoke the union's status. The court rejected this reasoning, holding that the Board lacks statutory authority to penalize unions for false affidavits filed by their officers, regardless of whether union members knew about the falsity.

The court noted that Congress deliberately chose to address false non-Communist affidavits through criminal penalties imposed on the individuals who file them. The existence of these criminal sanctions reflects Congress's judgment about the appropriate deterrent to perjury. If those penalties have proven insufficient, the court reasoned, the remedy lies with Congress rather than with the Board, which has no statutory power to create additional consequences beyond those Congress specified.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the NLRB may revoke a union's compliance status based on an officer's false non-Communist affidavit
Whether union awareness of affidavit falsity expands the Board's statutory authority
Allocation of enforcement power between the NLRB and Congress for false swearing under section 9(h)

Procedural posture

The International Fur and Leather Workers Union sought to enjoin the NLRB from revoking its compliance status, and the District Court granted a preliminary injunction, prompting this appeal by the Board.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Appellee, the International Fur and Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada, brought this suit to enjoin appellants, who are members of the National Labor Relations Board, from depriving appellee of its compliance status under § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act. *This appeal followed the District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction on the authority of our decision in Farmer v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, and consolidated cases.

In United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, we held “that the Board has no authoritj under the Act to deprive the Unions cf their compliance status under § 9(h) For that reason we restrained the Board from using a finding, that false non-Communist affidavits had been filed by their officers, as a basis for depriving the unions of the Act’s benefits. In the course of that decision, we said, “We need not decide whether the union would be barred from the Act’s benefits if its membership was aware of the alleged falsity of the affidavit.” There the Board had made no claim of such awareness. It does make the claim here in the following context.

Ben Gold, the president of the Inter-nationa] Fur and Leather Workers Union, was convicted in April 1954 of filing a false non-Communist affidavit in 1950.® Affidavits are required to be filed annually and are effective only for one year. On May 11, 1954, immediately after Gold was re-elected by the Union, he submitted a non-Communist affidavit to the Board for the ensuing twelve-month period in accordance with the annual filing requirement. In proceedings which the Beard had instituted immediately after Gold’s conviction, an order was issued on May 28, 1954 rejecting Gold’s 1954 affidavit because of his conviction, and holding the Union therefore not in compliance under § 9(h). From the fact of Gold’s conviction, the Board draws a conclusion that the Union was aware of the falsity of his May 11, 1954 affidavit.

Now that the Board has brought the “union awareness” problem before us, we feel our decision must be the same as that in the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers case. The absence of authority in the Board to deprive the. Union of its compliance status under § 9(h) cannot be supplied by membership awareness of the falsity of the affidavit. Congress explicitly provided a criminal penalty for false non-Communist affidavits. It assumed that this threat of criminal sanctions would be a sufficient deterrent to false swearing by union officers. If these sanctions have proved insufficient, it is for Congress, not the Board, to provide new ones.

Affirmed.

. 61 Stat. 146 (1947), as amended, 29 U.S. O.A. § 159(h): “No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 160 of this title, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of section 35A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.”

. 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 178, 211 F.2d 36, certiorari denied, 1954, 347 U.S. 943, 74 S.Ct. 638, 98 L.Ed. 1091, hereafter referred to as United Electrical Workers.

. 93 U.S.App.D.C. at page 181, 211 F.2d at pag( 39.

. Ibid.

. This conviction is now pending on appeal in t lis court (Gold v. United States, No. 12,332).

. Nor does the Act empower the Board to reject Gold’s 1954 affidavit on the ground that his 1950 affidavit was false.