Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eisenberg v. Holland Rantos Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT


decided: August 23, 1978.

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
v.
HOLLAND RANTOS CO., INC., CENTRAL JERSEY INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., EDMAR CORPORATION AND CHANDLER REALTY COMPANY, INC. 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, APPELLANT IN NO. 77-2058 HOLLAND RANTOS CO., INC., APPELLANT IN NO. 77-2059 CENTRAL JERSEY INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., EDMAR CORPORATION, AND CHANDLER REALTY COMPANY, INC., APPELLANTS IN NO. 78-1018 HOLLAND RANTOS COMPANY, INC., A DIVISION OF YOUNGS DRUG PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND CENTRAL JERSEY INDUSTRIAL PARK, INC., EDMAR COMPANY, INCORPORATED AND EDWARD CHANDLER REALTY COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civil No. 77-1257) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Board Nos. 22-CA-7600 and 22-CA-7601)

Before Adams, Van Dusen and Rosenn, Circuit Judges.

Author: Van Dusen

Opinion OF THE COURT

These appeals originate from unfair labor practice charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board on April 18, 1977, by Local No. 773, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO (hereafter Union). The Union's charges alleged that Holland Rantos Co., Inc. (Holland Rantos) was engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, As amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1976),*fn1 by denying its employees access to Holland Rantos' manufacturing facility which was leased from a privately owned industrial park, Central Jersey Industrial Park, Inc. (Central Jersey).*fn2 The Union's complaint, as subsequently amended during proceedings before the Board, named Central Jersey and its two owners, Edmar Corporation and Chandler Realty Company, Inc., as a single-employer respondent in addition to Holland Rantos.*fn3 After an investigation, the Regional Director of the NLRB, Arthur Eisenberg, issued a consolidated complaint against all respondents on May 3, 1977. A hearing was conducted before a hearing examiner on June 1, 1977. On June 23, 1977, the Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, filed with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey a petition for a temporary injunction pursuant to § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, As amended, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j) (1976). At a hearing before the district court, the parties stipulated that the transcript and exhibits of the proceedings before the hearing examiner constituted the appropriate record for the 10(j) proceedings. On July 18, 1977, the district court issued a memorandum of findings and conclusions of law determining that there was reasonable cause to believe that Holland Rantos and Central Jersey were violating § 8(a)(1). The district court granted a temporary injunction but, over the Board's express objections, limited the injunction's duration to 90 days from July 20, 1977, citing Eisenberg v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 519 F.2d 138 (3d Cir. 1975).*fn4 Holland Rantos and Central Jersey have appealed from the district court's grant of a temporary injunction at Nos. 77-2059 and 78-1018. The Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, has appealed from the limitation of the injunction to 90 days at No. 77-2058.

The hearing examiner issued his decision on September 16, 1977, finding a violation by each respondent of § 8(a)(1). The Board thereafter moved for an extension of the district court's § 10(j) injunction. Following a hearing on that motion on October 7, 1977, the district court extended the injunction until January 16, 1978. On expiration of this first extension, the district court granted a second extension until March 17, 1978. By decision and order of February 6, 1978, the Board affirmed the hearing examiner's ". . . rulings, findings, and conclusions . . ." (SA 8) that Holland Rantos and Central Jersey had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1976).*fn5 Holland Rantos and Central Jersey have petitioned this court for review of the Board's February 6, 1978, order at No. 78-1187.*fn6 The Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement of the February 6, 1978, order on March 28, 1978. We affirm the action of the district court in issuing and extending the temporary injunction and deny the Petition for Review of the Board's February 6, 1978 order, which will be enforced.

I. THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED UNDER § 10(j)*fn7

The Board has power under § 10(j) to petition the district court "for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order" and the district court has jurisdiction to grant "such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper" in the sense of being in the public interest. See Eisenberg v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 519 F.2d 138, 142 (3d Cir. 1975). After a careful review of the record and consideration of the briefs, as well as oral arguments, we can find no abuse of discretion by the district court in granting the § 10(j) injunctions described above on this record.

We reject the contention of the Regional Director, on behalf of the Board, that the district court committed reversible error or abused its discretion (see pp. 11-12 of Brief for Appellant at No. 77-2058 Cross-Appellee at Nos. 77-2059 and 78-1018) in limiting the duration of the temporary injunctive relief in accordance with the principles adopted by this court in Hartz Mountain, supra at 144, where the court said:

"In our view, a six-month period from the date of issuance of a Section 10(j) injunction should suffice, save in the most extraordinary circumstances, forthe completion of expedited action by an administrative law judge on the underlying complaint. Accordingly, we hold that in this circuit such an injunction should include an explicit time limitation, not longer than six months, on the restraint it imposes. If it is believed that injunctive relief or its continuation is warranted after the findings and recommendations of the administrative law judge have been entered, upon proper petition in an appropriate case a district judge may grant or continue a Section 10(j) injunction for an additional period of not more than six months to permit Board action upon those recommendations. Moreover, these six-month limitations shall not preclude a district judge from extending the life of any Section 10(j) injunction for an additional thirty-day period upon a showing that administrative action on the underlying controversy seems to be imminent."

We note that Hartz Mountain, supra at note 5, p. 143, pointed out that ". . . in many Section 10(j) cases . . ., an evidentiary hearing may be essential to informed decision whether an injunction would be in the public interest." The grant and the extensions of the temporary 10(j) injunction were within the time limitations stated in Hartz Mountain, supra at 144, and the availability of a hearing at the time of each extension assured the parties of an opportunity to be heard and to present testimony concerning the need for the restraints imposed in light of the current factual situation. We conclude that there is no persuasive reason to modify the abovementioned Hartz Mountain principles on the record now before us.

II. THE BOARD'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 6, 1978

There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board's findings, conclusions and order. See Hudgens v. N. L. R. B., 424 U.S. 507, 522, 96 S. Ct. 1029, 47 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1976); N. L. R. B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, 76 S. Ct. 679, 100 L. Ed. 975 (1956); N. L. R. B. v. Visceglia, 498 F.2d 43, 47 (3d Cir. 1974).*fn8

The § 10(j) temporary injunction orders of the district court will be affirmed, the petition for review will be denied, and the February 6, 1978, order of the Board will be enforced. Each party shall bear its own costs.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.