N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp.

18 Citing cases

  1. GHR Energy Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (In re GHR Energy Corp.)

    33 B.R. 449 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    The appeals court also awarded double costs under Fed.R.App.P. 38 (entitled "Damages for Delay") on October 7, 1982.See NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1982). Upon the joint motion of GHR and the NLRB in November 1982, the proceedings were re-scheduled to commence in March 1983. On February 3, 1983, GHR moved for a continuance.

  2. Iowa Exp. Distribution, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

    739 F.2d 1305 (8th Cir. 1984)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that unlawful motive is a critical inquiry in an alter ego analysis

    Four factors are considered to determine whether two distinct business entities are to be treated as a single employer for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act: (1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control. Radio Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256, 85 S.Ct. 876, 877, 13 L.Ed.2d 789 (1965); NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); Penntech Papers, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, 706 F.2d at 25; Mastell Trailer Corp. v. NLRB, 682 F.2d 753, 754 (8th Cir. 1982). No one of these factors is controlling nor need all criteria be present; single employer status is a factual question that ultimately depends upon all the circumstances of the individual case.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., (N.D.Ind. 1985)

    611 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. Ind. 1985)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining NLRB v. Dutch Boy, Inc., Glow Light Div., 606 F.2d 929, 993-94 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1979)

    A district court's review of an NLRB subpoena is "extremely limited," "extremely narrow," and of "a summary nature." NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); NLRB v. Frederick Cowan and Co., Inc., 522 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1975). See also EEOC v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304, 310 (7th Cir. 1981); EEOC v. Suburban Transit System, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 530, 532 (N.D.Ill. 1982).

  4. N.L.R.B. v. Brown Transport Corp.

    620 F. Supp. 648 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    Those inquiries necessarily involve an examination of Brown's structural organization. NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 133-14 (5th Cir. 1982) upheld a similar Board subpoena: Although on a first reading some of the language in the subpoenas does seem fairly broad, we think that the problem lies not so much with "particularity" as with the nature of the underlying claims.

  5. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maryland Cup Corp.

    785 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding EEOC's request was not unduly burdensome where company was required to inspect photos and interview employees in order to ascertain the race of former employees, even though compliance would cost $75,000

    Administrative subpoenas are subject only to limited review. See, e.g., NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (interpreting a statute granting subpoena power identical to that of the EEOC). Upon petitioning for enforcement of an administrative subpoena, the issuing agency must make a threshold showing that the subpoena is within the agency's authority, that the agency has satisfied statutory requirements of due process, and that the information' sought is relevant and material to the investigation.

  6. U.S. v. Int'l Union of Petro. Indus. Wkrs

    870 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 387 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that international union lacked legal control over documents in the possession of local unions because they were separate entities and the contract governing the union relationship did not expressly give the international the right to obtain the records of local unions upon demand

    STANDARD OF REVIEW The District Court's decision to deny enforcement of part of the administrative subpoena will be reversed only if the panel finds that that court abused its discretion by so ruling. N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R.Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 112 (5th Cir. 1982). DISCUSSION

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Frazier

    966 F.2d 812 (3d Cir. 1992)   Cited 170 times
    Holding that proceeding for enforcement of an agency subpoena was a dispositive matter

    We must affirm a district court's decision to enforce or quash a Board's subpoena unless we find that the district court abused its discretion. N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Friedman, 352 F.2d 545, 574 (3d Cir. 1965)). An abuse of discretion arises when "the district court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact."

  8. CITIZENS' AIDE/OMBUDSMAN v. GROSSHEIM

    498 N.W.2d 405 (Iowa 1993)   Cited 12 times
    Upholding authority of "citizens' aide" to issue subpoenas to investigate complaints relating to penal/correctional agencies

    Because agency subpoena power is essentially a discovery tool, our review is limited to abuses of trial court discretion. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 497 (Iowa 1981); see also NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (district court's enforcement order to be affirmed unless discretion abused). That does not mean, however, that the court's discretion is unlimited. Enforcement is the rule, not the exception, so long as the four-factor test we adopted in Roadway is met.

  9. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quad/Graphics, Inc.

    63 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding company failed to meet its burden of establishing compliance with the EEOC subpoena would threaten its normal business operations even when it presented an affidavit averring it would cost over 200,000 employee-hours to comply with the EEOC subpoena

    This approach comports with the standard employed by the majority of the circuits. See, e.g., FDIC v. Wentz, 55 F.3d 905, 908 (3d Cir. 1995); In re McVane, 44 F.3d 1127, 1135 (2d Cir. 1995); Reich v. National Eng'g Contracting Co., 13 F.3d 93, 98 (4th Cir. 1993); Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn Van Dyke, P.C. v. RTC, 5 F.3d 1508, 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing FTC v. Lonning, 539 F.2d 202, 210 n. 14 (D.C. Cir. 1976)); United States v. Medlin, 986 F.2d 463, 466 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 347 (1993); NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); EEOC v. Packard Elec. Div., 569 F.2d 315, 317-18 (5th Cir. 1978). But see Reich v. Montana Sulphur Chem. Co., 32 F.3d 440, 443 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We review de novo the district court's decision regarding enforcement of an agency subpoena.") (citing EPA v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 836 F.2d 443, 445-46 (9th Cir. 1988)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1355, (1995).

  10. National Labor Relations v. Carolina Food Pro

    81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a court should enforce an NLRB subpoena "if the information sought is relevant" and "described with sufficient particularly"

    The district court should enforce the Board's subpoena if the information sought is relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Board and is described with sufficient particularity. See NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982); accord EEOC v. City of Norfolk Police Dep't, 45 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1995) (noting that district court's review of administrative subpoena is limited to determining whether the agency is authorized to conduct the investigation, whether the agency "has complied with statutory requirements of due process," and whether the information sought is relevant). We, in turn, review the district court's decision to enforce the subpoena for abuse of discretion; we may reverse the district court's enforcement order "only in the most extraordinary of circumstances." G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d at 113 (footnote omitted).