Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ Certiorari — Biazevich v. National Labor Relations Board

\

INDEX oe

— , Page

Opinions below: 1

Jurisdiction .. 1

Questions presented -.......... : 2

Statute involved -.: ianiabat ) 2g

Statement ... : a

A. The unfair labor practices found i the Board ... 2 \.

B. The procedural issue and the Board’s ruling

thereon 8

C. The decision of the court of a vad igatenenesonencin << oe

~—Argument : iid 11.

Conclusion 3 ; nee oe

_ CITATIONS |

Cases: : |

American Ship Building Co. VN. National Labor Re- 4

lations Board, 380 U.S. 300..................... saiseiaeinianns 13

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, The, 118 |

: NLRB 1280 padiesaapbedieiieiigdelatiadnaabesiiidddis aaa ste eis "3%

Harvey Aluminum, Inc, v. National Labor Rela-

tions Board, 335 F. 2d 749... eT a Pa 14°

Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109... POSES SS Pe 14

Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corp., 121 NLRB 700 ........ 9

Universal Camera Corp. Vv. National Labor Rela- ©

tions Board, 340 U.S. 474 . senescence” > ae

‘United States v. Ebeling, 146 F. 2d 254 licachadacag: 14

Statute: “? : ;

. National Labor Relations Act, as epeniie’ (61

Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq):

' Section 8(a) (1) -........... sesichedanenaalinbuiad accu aes 7

SIE SOD piv bseccieasenicoceanntaneceunioscocen Sisiaieiss 7

BI I ie We i

ee Ae ch ee I 7,8

SEE PIII sicticccinsienccsceriarsaocantmasnnsauiees - 418

NLRB Rules & Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 102.118 . 9

6

OE Ak, mm up

; . -

‘ . 7 % - ’ 7°

. : .

$*? . ‘

. ‘ % .

. : r ; . . hd

: ¢ . ”@

” ” he a - “.

( 3 te

; \s ;

\ “* ? i .

5

. e ®

F ¥~% T.-% - . ™ .

. . o { - ”

nes , rs

es : . ‘

.

: . f

. ° _ e es

es

, ‘ + .

- 4

’ ‘ \ ’ ; t ?

a * Pet ’

e - | ae

. e *

' e ; bl | ’

a : } . ' j

7 ' t . f : ®

; Z { ; j . *.. .

* : eh e “if

e » -

. : : ¥

‘ .

*

. : . & K

: . . 6 ‘

‘ , % f :

n i

. . .

* *

? . i ¥ e

— . al a

. e m" 7 —_——e :

is a Man ae - a

ee PES —— a) s

= °

+” .

’

. ° bd . ‘ z %

. ‘

¢ . .

‘ che °

~ “4 od . ¥ . e ° a

. We =

. . . ,

. a :

- e :

° .

- ? el

- . ——— g se $

s - ¢ Seckaes ccna TE . . *

Rakes Sete sd ° . :

P ‘

. e “. ba be

. . 4-%

’ e bd

Ps ¥ > ” °

- « . .

. 5 . ’

’ ¢ 0 .

t e . e . . . .

. . ‘

ae .

¥ °

.

: . : : : : e

.

@ . . 7 : . .

‘ - .

’ e . .

on . “ °

’ a a bal . e -

- @* - * E

. 4 0: ° ®

s .

s 4 F

aie ° . 5 »

: J

.

. . z

' . . $-

E t

® ‘ ° ‘

- . . ‘

‘ és . .

ee ee eee te — +- <= es - —_ SS are . =e >

__ cisions and orders are reported at 186 NLRB 13 and

In the ities Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1967

No. 464.

| PAUL BIAZEVICH, ET: AL., ‘PETITIONERS

v. ee

7 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD |

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

NINTH CIRCUIT

, t : .

Y .

~~ BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD IN OPPOSITION . :

.*

‘OPINIONS BELOW |

The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. A

1-16) is reported at 374 F. 2d 974. The Board’s de-

186 NLRB 1 (Pet. Apps. B and C).

JURISDICTION * <

The decision of' the court of appeals was issued on

January 6, 1967, and a-petition for rehearing was

{1)

ae

denied on May 9, 1967 (Pet. 8). The petition for a -

‘writ of certiorari was filed on-August 7, 1967. The

. jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

4254(1).

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

‘. Whether. substantial evidence supports the

Board’s finding that petitioner boat owners violated

\. Seetion 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations

Act by discharging their crews in order to avoid

— with a disfavored union.

Whether the court of appeals same teend

‘a! saat Yaphioae were not prejudiced by the Trial Ex-

aminer’s revocation of subpoenas served on Board

employees, and by his refusal to examine certain

‘memoranda to determine whether they should. be*

_ made available to petitioners — purposes of cross-

examination. 17M !

* STATUTE INVOLVED

The relevant provisions of the National Labor ‘Re-

lations Act are set out in Appendix D of the petition.

STATEMENT

A. The ‘Unfair Labor Practices Found By The Board

Petitioner boat. owners ‘operate fishing vessels in

Southern California. In 1955, the fishermen on these

vessels were represented by Fisherman’s Union, Local -.

33, ILWU ( “Local 33”). Under the collective bar-

gaining agreement the crew’s wages consisted of a

specified share of the gross —* of the catch |

_

(R. 719; G.C. Ex. 33-34, Tr. 1979, 2001).! However,

“if the price paid for the fish fell below levels specified

by the agreement, the crew was ‘to receive @ mini-—

‘mum guarantee per ton (R. 719; G.C. Ex. 33-34, Tr.

_ 1979, 2001, 2182-2148). In 1955, tuna prices de-

". clined to a level where the minimum-guarantee pro-- |

visions of the contract became operative. ‘In April

. 1955, at the boat owners’ request, Local 33 induced

the fishermen to accept payment on a straight per-

centage basis without any guarantee and, in June,

Local 33 induced the crew to accept another reduction

in wages. (R. 984, 714; G.C. Ex. 34, 35, 38, 42, Tr.

2010, 2096, 2130-2148). Thereafter, the crews re- ;

fused to accept any further cut in wages, which were

_ already substantially lower than those to which they

_ were contractually entitled (R. 984; G.C. Ex. 45, 46,

Tr. 494-495, 2096, 8539-3542),. The masters elected

not to fish for tuna on a minimum guarantee basis,

- . and laid up their vessels (R. 1195 Tr. 203-204, 146,

| 2928, 3403-3404, 3577-3578).

Other vessels, represented by ‘petialinas Seine & |

Line Fisherman’s Union of Los Angeles Harbor, Sea-

vee -farers’ International Union of North America, AFL-.

‘CIO (“Seine & Line”) continued to fish, however, as .

_ Seine & Line had agreed to accept payment on a

_. straight percentage basis (R. 720; Tr. 3668). Ac-

cordingly, beginning in August 1955, petitioner: boat

- owners began to inform their crews, most of whom’

1“R.” refers to Vol. 1-of the record certified by the court of.

appeals. The remaining references are to the transcript of

testimony and the exhibits in the other Volumes of the ot

fied record.

pi Re RA

4

were Local 83 edhatuits (G. C. Ex. 69, Tr. 2387 ),

_ that-at the end of 1955 when they could. terminate

their contract with Local 33 they intended to bargain

‘with Seine & Line and to employ only fishermen who

_were members of or cleared by Seine & Line,’

3 In mid-October 1955, the boat owners, who had pre-

viously bargained with Local 33 through the Fisher-

man’s. Cooperative. Association, formed the American

Tuna Committee (“ATC”) to represent them in ~~“

ture bargaining negotiations and agreed not to deal

- separately with Local 33 (R. 720; G.C. Ex. 47, 68C,

68D, Tr. 2096, 2292, 2521-2535, 2672-2682, 2726,

2906-2908, 2941-2942, 2947-2956). . About -Oc-

‘tober 27, the boat owners notified Local 33

of their desire to terminate the existing. agree-

‘ment on December 31. In: early November,

‘Local 33 offered to accept a minimum guaranteé

' which was the same as the crew members would re-

ceive on a straight percentage basis, provided that .

the vessels began to unload within 10 days after ar- .

rival at the dock (R. 984; Tr. 2009, 2215, 2572, G:C.

Ex. 50). The boat owners, through the Fishermen’s,

- Cooperative. Association rejected this proposal, and

. . * Arlene S. (Tr, 748-749, 981-982; Tr. 1738-1739, 1736,

1747-1751) ; Sea King.. (R. 981-982, 983, n. 13, 740-742; Tr.

749, 716-177, 1000-1001, 1005-1007, 1015-1019, 1027-1029, .

8575-8576) ; Golden West. (R. 731, 733, 749; Tr. 1578-1582,

’ 1564, 1868-1869) ; Sea Scout. (R. 981-983, n. 13, 738-739;

. Tr, 859-860; 878-379, 423, 489-440, 473, 660, 668, 422-423,

470-471, 477, 4869-4870) ; Defense. (R. 981-982, 983, n. 13,

729-731; Tr. 126, 183, 229-230, 298-300, 648, 685-686, 1298,

1877) ; Columbia, (R. 981-982, 988, n. 18;."Tr. 560-562, 582,

598) ; City of Los Angeles. (R. 981-982, 734-735; Tr. 1387-

1888, 1472-1478, 1609-1908, 2321-2328, 2336-2337 ).

sa)

made no.effort to pursue’the matter further (R. 984;

G.C. Ex. 50, Tr. 2009). On December 15, Local 33

wrote to ATC’s counsel: protesting that the contract

terminations were not effective and- requesting a

meeting to. discuss the terminations and contract

negotiations (R. 720; G.C, Ex. 52, Tr..2037)./ ATC’s _

reply ignored the request for a meeting and expressed |

doubt as to “the right of your organization to bar- ’

gain for these crews” (R. 720; G.C. Ex. 54, Tr.

2085). On December 23, Local 833 again requested a.

meeting and ‘pointed out that it had been customary

for the boat owners to rehire substantially all of the — :

crew members employed. during the preceding season.

. It stated that it was prepared to submit proof that"

practically. all of these crew members wanted Local

33 to represent them os 720; GC. Ex: 54, Tr.

RS oe x

-- “Once hired by one of petitioner boat owners, a crew

‘tember, if he heard nothing to the contrary from the

master, expected to continue to work aboard the same ~

vessel (R. 721; Tr. 4010, 2641-2642, 927-928, 938-

939, 3099-3102, 3457, 3546, 2568-2569, 397-398, 1833,

837; 713, 938, 1087, 1998, S. Tr. 2487, G.C. Ex. 9-

_ 22). Most of the crew.members followed the practice - 7

of leaving on the boat, between voyages, . ‘clean a!

—7

>On December 27, 1955, Local 33 higais to picket the vessels

. involved to protest the boat owners’ action in terminating th

- agreements as they existed in 1955, and in withdrawing rec |

ognition from Local 83 as the representative to bargain for —

new agreements. (R. 985-986, 720; G.C. Ex. 56, 59, 60; Se

2101, 2039-2046, 2085). This picketing continued until early t

January 1956, when it was enjoined by a State court a 720;

_Tr. 2047, 2079, 2590).

6

ing and other gear of modest. value, which were use-

ful only during fishing trips (R. 722; Tr. 3209, 3360, .

400, 423-124, 1070, 1077-1078, 2585-2587, 3099-3100,

3964, 936-937, 1595, 875-876, 311-313, 437, 1551-

1552, 839, 638-639, 680, 1040-1041, 1111-1112, 1306,

. 801, 2909-2911, 530, 1145). Prior to December 29,

1955, petitioner boat owners sent virtually identical

letters (the “clothes letters”) -to practically all the.

members of their 1955 crews, telling them to remove _

their personal belongings from the boats. These let-.

‘ters were intended by the boat owners, and inter-

. . preted by the crew members, to constitute discharges.

(R. 983-984, 722-723; Tr. 2537, 2590-2592, 2600,

2777-2778, 3074-3075, 3157-3160, 3257-3258, °3299-

3300, 3403, 3653-3654, 3823, 3962-3964, 128-130,

238, 316-317, 360, 403, 424-425, 440, 476, 502-503,

531-532, 563-564, 607-608, 643, 661-662, 689, 706,

771-772, 786-787, 810, 841-842, 878-879, 916-917,

971-972, 1071-1072, 1086-1087, 1105, 1153, 1195,

1239, 1273, 1299-1300, 1305, 1329-1329, 1371-1372,

-1889, 1418-1419, 1481, 1507, 1529-1530, 1617-1618,

1842, 1851-1852, 1875-1876, AEP T-LE0, 1946-1947,

2299-2301, 2323-2324.)

Immediately after mailing these letters, Skipper

John Zorotovich of the Defense, one of the vessels in-_

volved, telephoned his old crew members and told.

them that he could not “work by” Local 33’s contract, —

- but that, if they could join Seine & Line, “we. could

still go fishing as a group” (R. 982, n. 11, 730; Tr.

_ 3411-3412). Similarly, when several members of the

City of Los Angeles crew went down to the boat to

7

| pick up their belongings, boat owner Nick Gargas told

_ them that, if they would “go in” Seine & Line, “then

_ [they] can stay in the boat” (R. 735;-Tr. 1898-1899).

Toward the end of 1955, the boat owners began to’.

hire almost completely new crews to sail in 1956-

AR. 723, 739; Tr. 3162-3163, 3194-3199, 3263-3265,

3458-3460, 3553-3554, 3623-8632, 3973-3977). An-

.drew Vilicich, then owner of the.Marsha Amn, in-

structed the skipper of that boat not to hire even the

best members of the 1955 crew because Vilicich

“didn’t want no one from Local 33” (R. 732-733; Tr.

1585-1586). On January 3, 1956, some of the boat

owners met with their ATC counsel and a Seine &

Line representative (R. 724; Tr. 3965-3966). On.

January 4, the boat owners signed collective agree-

ments with Seine & Line which included, inter alia,

union security and checkoff provisions (R. 988, 724;

G.C. Ex. 66, Secs, II, IX).

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Board

found that petitioner boat owners violated Section 8°

(a)(3) of the Act by discharging 52 members of

. their 1955 crews in order to avoid dealing with Local

33 (Pet. App. B 10).*

4The Board also found that petitioner boat owners. inter-

fered with, restrained and coerced their employees, in viola-

tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, by telling employees on

various occasions during the fall and winter of 1955 that they

could continue to work after the end of the year only if they

joined Seine & Line, and that otherwise they would be replaced

(Pet. App. B 9-10).. In addition, the Board found that peti-

tioner boat owners violated Section 8(a) (1), (2), and (3) of

the Act, and that Seine & Line violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)

and oe , by: entering into and enforcing a union-security .

° oo

The Board’s order, inter alia, requires petitioner

-boat owners to reinstate the discriminatorily dis- —

charged employees, and to withdraw recognition from

and cease giving effect to their contract with Seine &

Line. The order further requires the boat owners,

jointly and severally with Seine & Line, to make the

crew members whole for any loss of pay suffered as a

result of the unfair labor practices, and to reimburse

them for all moneys exacted from them under the il-

legal union-security provisions of the contract. (Pet.

App. B 23-29. -

B. The Procedural Issue and the Board’s Ruling Thereon

The Board hearing in the instant case began on

August 5, 1957. At that time thé Board’s rules and

regulations prohibited all agency employees from pro-

ducing any ‘documents, reports, memoranda, or rec-.

ords of the Board, within the General Counsel’s con-

trol, without the General Counsel’s written consent.

. The Board interpreted this rule as limiting the right

contract at a time when Seine & Line was not the statutory

representative of the employees, and which contained pro-

visions unlawful on their face in that they (1) failed to allow

non-members the 30-day grace period for joining the union.

afforded by the statute; (2) required employees to pay

assessments as well as initiation fees and dues; (8) required

employees to execute checkoff authorizations; and (4) called

for forfeiture of earnings by all employees who failed to pay

Seine & Line the amounts described above (Pet. App. B 18-20).

Finally, the Board found that Seine & Line further violated

Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by entering into an

unlawful union-security contract with other employers (Pet.

App. C 6). Petitioners do not here contest these additional

ane.

.

of its attorneys and field examiners to produce state-

ments made by the General Counsel’s witnesses dur-

ing pre-trial investigations. The Great Atlantic and

Pacific Tea. Company, 118 NLRB 1280. Accordingly,

at the original hearing the Trial Examiner upheld -

the refusal of the attorney for the General Counsel to

comply with petitioners’ demand for the production of

such statements (R. 979). The hearing closed on

July 9,1958, er a | x

On August 28, 1958, the Board held that the fore-

_ going rule was invalid to the extent that it foreclosed

_ production of such statements for purposes of cross- °

examination. Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corp., 121

NLRB 700 (R. 684-635). Accordingly, on Septem-

‘ber 8, 1958, the Trial Examiner issvied an order re-

versing any ruling made at the hearing which denied

the request of any petitioner for production of pre-

trial statements within the purview of Ra-Rich, re-

quiring the General Counsel to make such pre-trial

statements available to any petitioner forthwith, and

*In accordance with this decision, the Board rule barring

agency employees from producing documents under the Gen-

eral Counsel’s control, without his consent, was amended to

read (29 C.F.R. 102.118) : aa) {31 ,

* * *: Provided, After a witness called by the gen- .

eral counsel has testified in a hearing upon a complaint

under section 10(c) of the act, the respondent may move

for the production of any statement: of such witness in

possession of the general counsel, if such statement lias

been reduced to writing and signed or otherwise approved

. or adopted by the witness. Such motion shall be granted

__ by the trial examiner. If the general counsel declines to

* furnish the statement, the testimony of the witness shall s

be stricken: * * |*, a :

10

permitting any petitioner to move to reopen the hear-

ing for the limited purpose of further examining any

witness whose pre-trial statements were within the

scope of his order (R. 979; 632-635, 637). Pursuant .

to the Trial Examiner’s ruling, the General Counsel —

furnished to petitioners all the pre-trial statements

which were in his possession (with the one exception,

discussed below).

Thereafter, the icin was re-opened and 58 of

the original 71 witnesses returned and were cross-

examined on the basis of their pre-trial statements. —

Thirteen witnesses, whose statements had been fur- .

nished to petitioners, did not appear at the re-opened

hearing. Their testimony was stricken from the rec-

ord by the Board. (Pet. App. B 7).

_ Approximately 10 witnesses at the re-opened hear-

ing testified to the existence of statements which were °

_ not produced. In response to inquiries made by peti-

tioners’ counsel, the attorney for the Genéral Counsel -

repeatedly stated that he had searched his files and

had no statements of any kind from. these witnesses.

(Tr. 4372, 4462-4463, 4689, 4712-4713, 4887.) He

did disclose that in his search he had discovered two

notebooks containing handwritten notes of a deceased

field examiner (“the Filter memoranda”) (Tr. 4712-

4713). Petitioners’ counsel requested the Trial Ex-

_aminer to direct the attorney for the General Counsel

to: produce the Filter memoranda. The Examiner -

refused this request, and revoked subpoenas duces te-

cum and ad testificandwm which had been served on.

representatives of the General Counsel relative to the

11

other alleged statements which had not been produced

. (Tr. 4826-4837, 5045, ATC Exh. 41-44). The Board

sustained the Examiner’s rulings, noting, with spe-

cific reference to the Filter memoranda, that “[nJone

of these notes were signed or authenticated by wit-

nesses”: (Pet. App. B 8, n. 8), as required by the

Board’s rule’ (n. 5, supra). -

.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

~The court of appeals found that the Board’s unfair

labor practice findings were supported by substantial —

evidence (Pet. App: A 5). Respecting the procedural

~ issues, the. court concluded that, although the Trial.

Examiner had erred in revoking the subpoenas and

in refusing to examine the Filter memoranda to

determine whether they should be produced, these er-

_ , Tors were not prejudicial to petitioners (Pet. App..A

5-15). Accordingly, the court enforced the Board’s

orders in full (Pet. App: A 16). .

‘ARGUMENT

_ Since the opinion of the court of appeals is correct

and there is no conflict in the circuits, there is

no occasion for further review. © ets |

1. The substantive issue petitioners seek to raise—

whether the boat owners were privileged to lockout

their employees in order to avoid ‘“‘serious economic

consequences” (Pet. 37)—is not presented here. The

_ Board found, and the court below sustained its find-

ings, that petitioner boat owners did not merely tem-

porarily layoff their crew members but actually dis-

| 12

charged them-and that the reason for that action was.

‘to replace Local 33 with Seine & Line. Petitioners’

challenge to these findings raises only a substantial —

evidence issue, which does not warrant review by this —

_ Court. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor |

Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 490-491. |

In any event, substantial evidence supports the’

Board rejection of petitioners’ conténtion that the dis-

_ charges were made solely because the economic de-

-- mands of: Local 33 were impossible to meet. As the

Board pointed out (Pet. App. B 18-14):

contrary to the contention that the Local 93 de-

mands were: so inflexible that it was impossible

for the boatowners to deal with that Union, the

record shows that, even though Local 33 had a

written collective-bargaining agreement with the

boatowners covering the year 1955, Local 33

agreed on three occasions during the first 7

months of 1955 to modify that agreement to pro-

vide for progressive reductions in the rate of pay

to crewmembers because of the falling price of

tuna. When the price fell for the fourth time _

that year, the Union attempted to hold the line

but, after the boatowners had refused for. about

3 months to operate under the terms of the

agreement, Local 33 gave in and offered to modi-

fy the written contract in certain respects, in-

cluding acceptance of payment ‘based on the

market price of tuna. The boatowners, however,

failed to pursue this offer of Local 33 to further -

modify the 1955 agreement. Thereafter, they

- avoided all efforts made by Local 33 to nego-

tiate a new agreement for 1956, and, instead,

=

__precipitately en eel into a contract with Seine.

& Line, in which they agreed to pay the same

rate which Local 33 had ene offered to ac-

cept,

_ Nor are petitioners aided by American Ship Build-

ing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board; 380 U.S.

~ 800. ‘here the Court sanctioned a lockout in sup-~

port of the employer’s,bargaining demands; it did not

countenance such drastic action as a discharge of em-.

-ployees designed to oust their bargaining agent al-

together. Indeed, in American Ship, the Court

carefully. distinguished the bargaining lockout there

involved—“the purpose and effect. of [which] were

* only to bring pressure upon the union to modify its

' . demands”—from a situation where the employer .

“locked out only union members, or locked out * * *.

- employee[s] simply because [they were] union mem-

ber[s] * * *. [or] conditioned rehiring upon resigna-

tion from the union.” 380 U.S. at 312:

_2. Similarly, no issue ‘warranting further review

is presented by the court of appeals’ disposition of

petitioners’ procedural objections. Concerning the

Filter memoranda, the court below agreed with peti-

tioners that the Trial Examiner erred in refusing to

examine those notes in camera. But petitioners would

have been‘entitled to obtain those notes only if they

contained a substantially verbatim account of the tes-

timony of one or more of the witnesses, and the court -

_ properly found that petitioners had failed to make

that showing. As the court pane out (Pet. App.

A 14):

14.

Before we would be able to determine whether °

_ any of Filter’s notes are the type of verbatim ac-

counts which should have: been turned over’ for

use in cross-examination, we would need an op-

portunity to personally examine them. But the

Filter memoranda have not been made a part of

the record herein. “If petitioners wished review

_ of the trial examiner’s determination as to the

‘nature of the report, it was incumbent upon .

them to see that a record was presented upon

'. which review could be had, by requesting that the

‘memorandum be submitted to the.court under

seal.” [Quoting Harvey Aluminum, Inc. v. Na-

tional Labor Relations Board, 335 F. 2d 749, 156 |

(C.A. 9).] ©

The holding of the court of appeals is in accord with

Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116, where this

Court approved a similar. requirement. See also

United States v. Ebeling, 146 F. 2d 254, 256, 257

(C.A, 2).°

The court of appeals was likewise justified in con-

cluding that petitioners were not prejudiced by the

_ Trial Examiner’s quashing of the subpoenas which

had been served on representatives ‘of the General

Counsel seeking the production of additional pre-trial.

statements from ten witnesses. As the court. below

stated (Pet. App. A 7), “the attorneys for the gen- |

Nor is it material that the court below may have declined,

during oral argument, the opportunity to inspect “a portion

of the statements” (Pet. 28). A proffer at oral argument

of only a part of the material in issue.is not an adequate

substitute for having all of the relevant niaterial incorporated

in the record and oy certified to the court of appeals.

eS »

eral counsel and for the charging party, in response ~

to questioning by counsel for respondents, repeatedly

stated that they had thoroughly searched their rec- |

ords and had been unable to find any statements other

than those which they had already handed over.”

Petitioners’ contention that they. nonetheless were

prejudiced rests on: the erroneous premise that “the

attorney for the General Counsel admittedly limited

his search to ‘signed statements’ ” (Pet. 26). But the

record shows that his search was not so liimted. Thus,

counsel for the General Counsel stated (Tr. 4713) :

* * * T went through all the Biazevich file[s],

all the Christ Granich ‘files, and all of the files

* * * fof] several other smaller miseellaneous |

fishing cases where there is a possibility: that

there. might have been some statement: mislaid,

and I found ‘no statement, either signed or pre-

pared for signature of any witness which was

called, other than those which I have furnished.’

In view of the foregoing,. there is no merit to peti-

tioners’ contention (Pet. 30-33) that the court of ap-

peals applied a novel and unduly burdensome test of

prejudice in this case. Nor is there a conflict of de-

cisions; the cases cited by petitioners (Pet. 27-29)

clearly involve different factual situations.

7The transcript references cited by petitioners (Pet. 30) *

do not establish the contrary. Three reveal (see Tr. 4713,

5098, 5122) that the only unsigned statements which counsel

for the General Counsel discovered were the Filter memo-

randa, discussed supra. The fourth reference (Tr. 4788)

involves a response to a request for a specific signed statement.

16

CONCLUSION

' . The petition for a writ of certiorari should be de-

nied. | |

Respectfully submitted.

4

RALPH S. SPRITZER, '

Acting Solicitor General. —

ARNOLD ORDMAN, ae

General Counsel, _

Dominick L. MANOLI, :

_ Associate General Counsel,

NorTON J. CoME,

Assistant General Counsel,

LINDA SHER, |

: Attorney,

National Labor Relations Board. _

SEPTEMBER 1967.

ft » 8. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFricE, 1967 274026 «6191