Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

“ At the election, the employees were to select one of two labor unions as their exclusive bargaining representative, or to choose not to be represented by a union at all. In connection with the election, the Board ordered the respondent to furnish a list of the names and addresses of its employees who could vote in the election, so that the unions could use the list for election purposes. ”

“ The principal issue before the Board in the Excelsior case was whether the election should be set aside on the ground, urged by the unions, that the employer had refused to make the employee lists available to them. See 156 N.L.R.B., at 1236-1238. The Board decided that the election involved there should not be set aside and thus rejected the contention of the unions. In doing so, the Board chose to explain the reasons for its rejection of their claim, and it is this explanation, the Board's written opinion, which is the source of the Excelsior requirement. ”

“ The disclosure requirement furthers this objective by encouraging an informed employee electorate and by allowing unions the right of access to employees that management already possesses. It is for the Board and not for this Court to weigh against this interest the asserted interest of employees in avoiding the problems that union solicitation may present.
The respondent contends that even if the disclosure requirement is valid, the Board lacks power to enforce it by subpoena. ”

“ For example, in exercising its quasi-judicial function an agency must frequently decide controversies on the basis of new doctrines, not theretofore applied to a specific problem, though drawn to be sure from broader principles reflecting the purposes of the statutes involved and from the rules invoked in dealing with related problems. ”

“ Rohlen, 385 F.2d 52, 55-58 (C.A.7th Cir. 1967) ; NLRB v. Beech-Nut Life Savers, Inc., 406 F.2d 253, 259 (C.A.2d Cir. 1968) ; British Auto Parts, Inc. v. NLRB, 405 F.2d 1182, 1184 (C.A.9th Cir. 1968) ; NLRB v. Q-T Shoe Mfg. Co., 409 F.2d 1247 (C.A.3d Cir. 1969) . We agree that the list here in issue is within the scope of § 11 so that the Board's subpoena power may be validly exercised.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court with directions to enforce the Board's order against the respondent.
It is so ordered. ”

“ The Administrative Procedure Act expressly exempts proceedings for 'the certification of worker representatives' from these requirements, 5 U.S.C. §§ 554 (a) (6) , 556 (a) , 557 (a) , and these proceedings are therefore governed only by the requirements specified in the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ”

“ A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 67 S.Ct. 324, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946) ; NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953) ; and Brooks v. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96, 75 S.Ct. 176, 99 L.Ed. 125 (1954) . ”