Before MILLER, Chief Judge, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 1962.CDC.35
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRETTYMAN
PRETTYMAN, C.J.: The Secretary of Labor, acting by authority claimed under Section 601 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, *fn1 issued a subpoena to the appellant union, requiring it to have certain records available at its office for the inspection of representatives of the Secretary. Upon application of the Secretary, the District Court issued an order to show cause why the union should not be required to appear before the Secretary, at such time and place as the court might determine, and there produce the papers specified in the subpoena. After memoranda and argument the court, relying upon Goldberg v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299, *fn2 concluded that the subpoena should be enforced and issued an order to that effect. The union appealed, and this court stayed the effectiveness of the order pending the appeal.
In its brief here the appellant union raised several points. However the Local 299 case involved two subpoenas almost identical with the one now before us, except that they did not specify "membership files" or membership lists, and they called for records for the full calendar year 1959; and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari in that case. *fn3 We accept and adopt the dispositions made by the Sixth Circuit in that case. We find it necessary to discuss two points raised by our appellant, not covered by the opinion of the Sixth Circuit. I. The Secretary included in his subpoena a requirement that the union
produce, among other documents, "membership files both active and inactive". Both parties assume that by "membership files" the Secretary means lists of individual members. *fn4 Upon that assumption appellant says (1) that it has no individual members and therefore has no such lists, (2) that the Act contains no requirement that it have or maintain such lists, and (3) that even if the union had such lists the Secretary has no statutory authority to require their production.
(1) The Local 299 case (supra) had to do with a local union and so did not concern membership lists of a parent international union. Appellant says, in an attachment to its initial report (under Section 201(a) *fn5 of the statute) that it does not have any "direct membership" but consists of an unlimited number of local unions. It says it does not receive any direct initiation fees, transfer fees, regular dues, or other periodic payments from individual members, but receives its funds from per capita taxes from each affiliated local union. It further says that as a matter of fact it has no lists of the individual members of its affiliated local unions. On oral argument counsel for the union said that the only document resembling a membership list is a subscription list to a publication of the union, but that such list does not purport to be an accurate reflection of the individual membership and does not in fact reflect such membership. Also on oral argument counsel said that the lists of the individual members of the local unions are kept by those unions.
On the other hand the constitution of the appellant union, which appears as Exhibit 1 to the report of the union under Section 201(a) of the Act, provides in Article II, Section 2(a):
"Any person of good moral character, employed in the craft or the various employments over which this International Union has jurisdiction, shall be eligible to membership in this organization."
And Article XXII of that constitution contains the following:
"Section 11. Local Union Secretary-Treasurers must pay to the General Secretary-Treasurer forty cents (40 ) out of every due collected by the Local Union.
"Section 12. Local Union Secretary-Treasurers must report the names and addresses of all new members coming into the Local Union to the General Office.
"Section 13. Local Union Secretary-Treasurers shall send to the General Secretary-Treasurer a revised list quarterly of the names and addresses of all members in good standing in the Local Union." *fn6
Thus a question of fact is presented between the terms of the constitution and appellant's statement of the facts. The matter was not explored in the District Court. However the District Court's disposition of the case reflects an adoption of the version contained in the constitution. This seems to us to have been a reasonable course. At the same time, the eventual program in this very important and delicate field of labor law ought not to rest upon erroneous facts. Therefore we delay our final order in the case for fifteen ...