Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

National Labor Relations Board v. Grunwald-Marx, Inc., 17023 (1961)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 17023 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 03, 1961
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 290 F.2d 210 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GRUNWALD-MARX, INC., Respondent. No. 17023. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 3, 1961. Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Rosanna A. Blake, and Donald J. Bardell, Washington, D. C., for N. L. R. B. Hill, Farrer & Burrill, and Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. PER C
More

290 F.2d 210

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
GRUNWALD-MARX, INC., Respondent.

No. 17023.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

April 3, 1961.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Rosanna A. Blake, and Donald J. Bardell, Washington, D. C., for N. L. R. B.

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, and Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

We decline to enforce the board's proposed order.

2

While one single isolated instance of a threat may be enough for an unfair labor practice under section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(a) (1), yet the vice president's purported threat shows no course of conduct and in the frame of the events is such that we can only regard it as de minimis.

3

The weakness of the case is well illustrated by the hearing examiner's conclusion that there was no threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit and he found support in the dissent of one member of the board.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer