# Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · January 31, 1956 · 229 F.2d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444914

## Case

- **Full name:** UTICA OBSERVER-DISPATCH, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1956
- **Citations:** 229 F.2d 575; 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2441; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4469
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Swan
- **Judges:** Lumbard, Swan, Frank, Lum-Bard
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444914

## Opinion text

SWAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
The trial examiner made a very detailed and thorough intermediate report. He found that Utica bargained in good faith and the Union did not; that its real reason for asking for individual wage data was to aid in the collection of union dues. This finding was based in large part on the credibility of Hogue’s testimony and the lack of credibility of Warner’s. The Board made no finding as to the good faith of the Union’s request, but merely says that Warner’s statement that the data “was also wanted for dues collection did not detract from its relevance to police the contract and bargain intelligently on wages.” In other words, the Board seems to hold that if a union’s demand states that the information is needed for negotiating a new contract, the employer must forthwith supply it without investigation as to the good faith of such statement. When a union asks for specified data it seems to me only reasonable to permit the employer to question the reasons stated and, if it develops that they are a mere facade and the real reason is one not relevant to bargaining about wages, to refuse to give the information. In my opinion the Board was wrong in overruling the trial examiner’s dismissal of the charge based on refusal to supply the data requested in the Union’s letter of July 12th.
As to the charge based on the employer’s letter of October 20th, I concur with my brothers.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9444914. Public record. Not legal advice.