ALDRICH, Circuit Judge.
During the past two months we have accumulated for simultaneous disposition a number of motions by the Labor Board which, for one reason or another, are uncontested.
In the Ochoa Fertilizer case it was charged that the respondent employer illegally maintained a closed or preferential shop agreement with the respondent union. The complaint filed by the Board alleged violation of sections 8(a) (1), (2) and (3), and 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1-3), (b) (1) (A), (2). No hearing was held, but a stipulation was filed in which both respondents admitted the charges and agreed to the entry of a broad order. The employer was to be enjoined from agreeing with the respondent union, "or any other labor organization," with respect to unlawful discrimination in favor of its members, or person approved by it, with regard to hiring or conditions of employment. Similarly, the union was to be enjoined from making any unlawful preferential arrangements with Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., "or any other employer." Both respondents agreed that the appropriate Court of Appeals could enter decrees pursuant to the stipulation without notice, hearing or objection. After we had excised, nostra sponte, from the proposed form of decree all references to "any other labor organization" and "any other employer," the Board moved for reconsideration, and we denied the motion. It has now moved for further reconsideration.
In the Las Vegas case the situation is in all respects similar, except that the charges, based on alleged violations of sections 8(a) (1) and (3) of the act, were of various unlawful activities interfering with respondent's employees' joining Local 925 of the charging union. The Board's order, following a stipulation of the parties, forbade the employer to engage in such activities directed against "the union, or any other labor organization." We excised the phrase "or any other labor organization," and thereafter denied a motion for reconsideration. Again, the Board moves for further reconsideration.
In item (3), N. L. R. B. v. Local 476, United Ass'n of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, 1 Cir., 1960, 280 F.2d 441, a section 8(b) (4) (A) case, the respondent union was found to have induced a strike against Joseph P. Cuddigan, Inc., the secondary employer, in order to assist its dispute with the E. Turgeon Construction Company for whom Cuddigan was doing subcontracting work. The Board's proposed order forbade inducing the employees of Cuddigan "or of any other employer" to strike for the purpose of inducing Cuddigan "or any other employer or person" to cease doing business with Turgeon "or any other company." We struck the quoted phrases.
N. L. R. B. v. Levitt Corp., item (4), is an action against three employers arising out of charges of discrimination by the local chapter of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. As in Local 476 the charges made no reference to any other union. However, a complaint was filed asserting violations of sections 8(a) (1) and (3) by reason of unlawful activities discouraging membership in the union "or any other labor organization." The quoted phrase of the complaint was purely conclusory. Thereafter a stipulation was filed in which each employer consented to a decree enjoining activities directed against "the Carpenters Union or any other labor organization." No facts are adduced in this stipulation which go beyond the specific allegations of the charges, and there is no affirmative indication that any other labor organization may be involved, presently or prospectively.
(6) In N. L. R. B. v. Union de Soldadores, a discharged employee filed charges against the local and its parent union, hereinafter called the District Council, asserting that he had lost employment because of the respondents' maintenance of an illegal preferential hiring agreement in violation of sections 8(b) (1) (A) and (2). The District Council was defaulted, and the local took no exceptions to the findings or recommendations of the trial examiner following the hearing. The examiner proposed that the respondents be enjoined from enforcing any agreement with the particular employer, Abarca, Inc., whereby unlawful preference would be extended to their members. The Board enlarged this to read "Abarca, Inc., or any other employer over which the board will assert jurisdiction." The record does not reveal any special circumstances which could support this amplification.
N. L. R. B. v. International Molded Plastics of Puerto Rico, Inc., item (7), is a complaint alleging violation of sections 8(a) (1) and (3), in all respects similar to Las Vegas. However, in this instance we have a full report of the testimony and findings of the examiner, the case being one in which the Board moves for summary entry of a decree. Here, again, it is plain on the record that only the one union, and no generalized course of conduct, is involved.
In the aggregate this exhibits a marked fondness on the part of the Board for broad decrees. We might add to this list our recent cases of N. L. R. B. v. Bangor Bldg. Trades Council, 1 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 287, and N. L. R. B. v. Local 111, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 1 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 823. In no case in which the record before us revealed the evidence available to the Board
An order, when implemented by us, becomes an injunction. The Supreme Court emphasized this in excising overly broad portions of a Board order in N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 426, 61 S.Ct. 693, 85 L.Ed. 930; see Note, 1944, 54 Yale L.J. 141 — affirmative
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the Board finds it proper to take a single offense as establishing the "generalized scheme" (Communication Workers, etc. v. N. L. R. B., supra), "proclivity" (McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., supra, 336 U.S. at page 192, 69 S.Ct. at page 500), or "pattern" (N. L. R. B. v. Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers, 3 Cir., 1960, 281 F.2d 319), necessary to warrant wholesale relief. Its logic, in the face of the clear pronouncements of the Court, escapes us. In those cases in which the record makes it apparent that there was but a single party involved we will not grant it. N. L. R. B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 7 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 694; N. L. R. B. v. Local 926, International Union of Operating Engineers, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 418, 420; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 1958, 104 U.S.App. D.C. 359, 262 F.2d 456, 462.
We turn to the consent cases, in which no evidence is presented by the record. The Board contends that we have "no right" not to enter the decree that the parties have stipulated to. It cites N. L. R. B. v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 385, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739 for the proposition that in the absence of timely objection by the respondent, this court must enforce any order propounded by the Board. In our opinion that case stands for no such proposition. The court there was careful to point out that findings of record disclosed a "course of conduct against which such an order may be the only proper remedy." Id., 327 U.S. at page 389, 66 S.Ct. at page 555. It was equally careful to point out that the situation would be different if the Board had "patently traveled outside the orbit of its authority." Id., 327 U.S. at page 388, 66 S.Ct. at page 554. We readily concur that we
An injunction broader than the need is not only contrary to all established equitable principles, but it is peculiarly inappropriate in the sensitive area of labor relations where abuses formerly rampant under broadly and vaguely worded decrees are legendary. See, e. g., Frankfurter and Greene, The Labor Injunction, Ch. III (1930). The Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-115, put an end to these abuses in the federal courts, and the broad principle for which it stands has not been compromised by subsequent labor legislation. Nor should it be by any "expertise" of the Board. We have seen that the Board's conclusion that "it is reasonable to infer" that a single offender will be an habitual one falls far short of the necessary showing. Nor does the willingness of a party, apprehended in an admitted offense, to bargain away by stipulation his future right to be free of injunctions covering situations not yet in esse seem to us an adequate substitute.
The Board observes in the consent cases that "it cannot be assumed that the evidence could not have supported the order." In the light of its already demonstrated approach, however, we think that such an assumption would not be unreasonable. Since the Board cries "Wolf" in every case, the cry has lost any significance. Our normal disposition is to assume, in the absence of a contrary showing, that a case is an ordinary one, rather than a special case calling for extraordinary relief. We do not think that consent makes the difference. We do not mean by this that, where no rights have been saved, a record will be scrutinized for every defect. We are not interested in errors on the merits, or in the propriety of specific relief, of which the parties have failed to complain.
Nor are we aware of any urgency calling for broad orders. The Board complains that our decision means "that no `broad' order can ever be entered by consent stipulation * * * [and the parties] will be compelled to go to hearing in order to present this Court with a record on which a `broad' order could be sustained." This, of course, is absurd.
There remain certain miscellaneous provisions in those proposed decrees with which we are presented for the first time (items 4-7). In Soldadores the Board's order includes the following paragraph.
The same language, but in shorter form, is found in International Molded Plastics. In this the Board seeks not simply to distinguish N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Co., supra, but flatly asks us to overrule it. We have neither the power nor the desire to do so. In Levitt and Elci similar paragraphs commence, "In any other like or related manner interfering with * * *" These we accept, bearing in mind that if occasion arises, we will construe them consistently with the views expressed in this opinion. Such provisions, in other words, have a proper place to prevent "easy evasion."
Orders and decrees will be entered in conformity with this opinion.