National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.
437 U.S. 214 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(A), a federal agency may make a generic determination that disclosure of particular kinds of investigatory records in particular kinds of enforcement proceedings would generally interfere with those proceedings, without needing to make a case-by-case showing of specific harm.
Facts:
- A representation election was held for employees of Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.
- Following the contested election, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigated allegations of pre-election misconduct by Robbins Tire.
- During its investigation, the NLRB collected statements from potential witnesses.
- Based on its findings, the NLRB issued an unfair labor practice complaint against Robbins Tire and scheduled a hearing.
- Prior to the hearing, Robbins Tire made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for copies of all statements from witnesses the NLRB intended to call.
- The NLRB's Acting Regional Director denied the request, claiming the statements were exempt from disclosure.
Procedural Posture:
- Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. filed suit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, seeking disclosure of witness statements under FOIA.
- The District Court held that Exemption 7(A) did not apply without a specific showing of danger and ordered the NLRB to provide the statements.
- The NLRB, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Board had the burden to demonstrate in each individual case that disclosure would likely result in witness intimidation or other interference.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the pre-hearing disclosure of witness statements collected by the National Labor Relations Board in connection with a pending unfair labor practice hearing constitute an "interference with enforcement proceedings" under Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. The pre-hearing disclosure of witness statements collected by the NLRB in connection with a pending unfair labor practice hearing constitutes an "interference with enforcement proceedings" under Exemption 7(A). The court reasoned that the legislative history of the 1974 amendments to FOIA shows that while Congress intended to eliminate blanket exemptions for entire investigatory files, particularly in closed cases, it did not intend to overturn the established practice of protecting witness statements in pending enforcement proceedings. The court identified two primary forms of interference that would result from premature disclosure: 1) the coercion or intimidation of employees who have given statements, and 2) giving the charged party earlier and greater access to the Board's case than it would otherwise have, allowing it to construct defenses and frustrate the proceedings. These risks are inherent in the nature of labor litigation, so the NLRB can make a generic determination that such disclosures would interfere with enforcement, without needing to prove a particularized risk of harm in each specific case.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Freedom of Information Act does not authorize interference in Labor Board enforcement proceedings, and this rationale applies equally to any enforcement proceeding. One of the definitions of "interference" is the act of meddling in a process. A statute, like FOIA, that would authorize discovery greater than that available under the rules normally applicable to an agency's enforcement proceeding would inherently "interfere" with that proceeding in the plainest sense of the word.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Powell
Yes, but only for certain categories of witness statements. The court is correct that Exemption 7(A) permits generic determinations of likely interference, but the majority's blanket exemption for all witness statements is too broad. A generic exemption is justified for statements by current employees that are unfavorable to the employer, given the high risk of reprisal and intimidation. However, the NLRB has not demonstrated a basis for presuming interference from the disclosure of statements from non-employees or favorable statements from current employees. The majority's holding improperly allows an agency's own restrictive discovery rules to define the scope of a FOIA exemption, contrary to Congress's intent in the 1974 amendments.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that under FOIA Exemption 7(A), courts can make "generic" determinations that certain categories of documents are exempt from disclosure during certain types of pending enforcement proceedings, without requiring a case-by-case showing of harm. It significantly strengthens the ability of law enforcement agencies, particularly the NLRB, to protect their investigative files and witness statements during active litigation. This ruling prevents FOIA from being used as a broad pre-trial discovery tool against the government, preserving the integrity of agency discovery rules and preventing potential witness intimidation and premature revelation of the government's case strategy.
