Petitioners Reply Brief — Local 9, International Chemical Workers Union v. Eisenberg

Office-Supreme Court, U.S,

80-2052 | rire

SEP 8 198)

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,

In The

Supreme Court of the Huited Stextes—

o—

October Term, 1980

LOCAL 9, INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS

UNION, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner,

VS.

ARTHUR EISENBERG, Regional Director of the Twenty-

second Region of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

STANLEY S. SPECTOR

Attorney for Petitioner

615-623 Bangs Avenue

Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712

(201) 774-6279

5018 LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS, INC.

NY (212) 840-9494 © (516) 222-1606 © (914) 683-9363

NJ (201) 257-6850 © PA (215) 563-5587 © DC (202) 783-7288 © MA (617) 227-1133

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Argument:

I. The issue is MOt MOOt. ..i.seeeeeceeeeeeeeeeees 2

II. Courts should be permitted to grant discovery in

BOE) PEOCROGINES. occ ccc ccccscccccccccccccens 3

ea, nek oan eb ete e600 0eeeeesseee 3

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases Cited:

Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115

DCs Gtn ae sendesesssedcccdiecercescccesaecesese 2

Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) .........5eee- 2

No.

Supreme Court of the United States

>

October Term, 1980

LOCAL 9, INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS

UNION, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner,

vs.

ARTHUR EISENBERG, Regional Director of the Twenty-

second Region of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent .

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Petitioner Local 9, International Chemical Workers Union,

AFL-CIO respectfully submits this reply brief in support of its

petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit.

2

ARGUMENT

I.

The issue is not moot.

Contrary to respondent’s contentions (Memo in Oppo. 4)

the distinction set forth in the case of Weinstein v. Bradford, 423

U.S. 147, 149 (1975) clearly sets forth that this is a case “capable

of repetition, yet evading review” and falls with the rule of Super

Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 (1974). The

petitioner in this case is still continually embroiled in cyclical

bargaining with the same employer for the employees at the

same facility and the governmental action or policy of not

providing discovery has adversely affected a present interest and

is a threat to do so in the future and again the strike probably

will not last long enough for judicial review.

Furthermore, the same situation may and will arise again

and again and still be incapable of review at other facilities

throughout the country where construction gates are used by

employers. Therefore, employees may be entitled to discovery,

but will never be able to get discovery, because of the inability to

obtain judicial review.

For the reason set forth herein, this Court should determine

that this issue is not moot.

3

II.

Courts should be permitted to grant discovery in 10(L)

proceedings.

10(L) proceedings are expedited proceedings heard on short

notice by orders to show cause. Discovery motions would not be

heard until after the Court acts. The Union has to show

affirmatively that the outside contractors are doing their work.

The Union loses a basic right to picket when they are enjoined.

Therefore, the discovery should be granted immediately so that a

Union can protect its rights in the hearing itself or move to have

the injunction dissolved where the appropriate facts are

discovered.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein and for the reasons stated in

the petition, it is respectfully requested that a writ of certiorari

issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals.

Respectfully submitted,

STANLEY S. SPECTOR

Attorney for Petitioner