UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
February 14, 1963
BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL-CIO, PETITIONER
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT. MCDERMOTT FABRICATORS, INTERVENOR.
*fn2 MCDERMOTT FABRICATORS
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, ETC ., 136 NLRB NO. 20 (1962).
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 1963.CDC.11
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
February 14, 1963.
PER CURIAM: Appellant filed unfair labor practice charges against intervenor, based upon certain alleged actions in the period November 18, 1958, to February 23, 1959. The General Counsel issued complaints based upon these charges on February 25 and May 11, 1959. After a full hearing on the merits before a hearing examiner, the Board, on March 21, 1962, dismissed the complaints on the ground that the union was not in compliance with Sections 9(f) and (g) *fn1 of the Act on the dates when the complaints issued.*fn2 Those sections forbade issuance of a complaint unless the union had supplied certain fiscal data to the Secretary of Labor and to its membership. Appellant does not contest the finding of non-compliance, *fn3 but argues that the subsequent repeal of those sections on September 14, 1959, *fn4 retroactively validated the complaints. We affirm the action of the Board.
The six-month statute of limitations on the issuance of a complaint on the charges here in suit expired at the latest on August 23, 1959. *fn5 The repeal of Sections 9(f) and (g) was not enacted until September 14, 1959. *fn6 Thus, because of the union's non-compliance, the Board did not have jurisdiction *fn7 to issue the complaints here, not only on the date they were issued, but at any time during the six-month period of limitations. To validate these complaints now would require retroactive application of the repealing Act - in effect to treat Sections 9(f) and (g) as if they never existed. *fn8 It is settled law that statutes are not to be applied retroactively "unless the words used are so clear, strong and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied." U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Struthers Wells Co ., 209 U.S. 306, 314 (1908). *fn9 There is no such language or clearly manifested intent here. *fn10