Bordas & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. Circuit

Bordas & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

288 F.2d 132

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1961

DocketNos. 15524, 15589

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 F.2d 132 (Bordas & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bordas & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 288 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Insofar as the decision and order of the Board are based upon its findings that a closed shop was entered into between the petitioner Association and petitioner companies and the petitioner unions, found to have been entered into on or about September 8, 1958, the decision of this court is reserved pending disposition by the Supreme Court of the United States of the cases of Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 107 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 275 F.2d 646, certiorari granted 363 U.S. 837, 80 S.Ct. 1610, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723, and N. L. R. B. v. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 7 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 699, certiorari granted 363 U.S. 837, 80 S.Ct. 1610, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723, or until the further order of this court. Jurisdiction of this aspect of the case is retained.

Insofar as the decision and order of the Board find that the petitioner Association and petitioner companies violated section 8(a) (1) and (3), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 3), and that petitioner unions violated section 8(b) (1) (A) and section 8(b) (2) of the Act, by causing Nicolas Santos Santos to be deprived of work opportunities commencing in October 1957, and that the petitioner unions also engaged in an independent violation of section 8(b) (1) (A) by coercive statements to Santos, the decision and order of the Board are affirmed.

[133]*133Insofar as the decision and order of the Board, except to the extent that they are affected by findings that a closed shop existed as aforesaid, rest upon findings that the petitioner Association and petitioner companies violated section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in discriminating with respect to the employment of Jose Ramos Mendez, and that the petitioner unions violated section 8(b) (2) of the Act in respect of said Jose Ramos Mendez, the question of the unlawful closed shop hiring practices being reserved, the decision and order of the Board are affirmed.

The Board is requested to submit a form of order to carry out this decision, including such modifications as to relief and remedy as are required by the reservation of the closed shop issue. If so advised, respondents may within fifteen days thereafter submit their views with respect to the order.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Insofar as the decision and order of the Board are based upon its findings that a closed shop was entered into between the petitioner Association and petitioner companies and the petitioner unions, found to have been entered into on or about September 8, 1958, the decision of this court is reserved pending disposition by the Supreme Court of the United States of the cases of Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 107 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 275 F.2d 646, certiorari granted 363 U.S. 837, 80 S.Ct. 1610, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723, and N. L. R. B. v. Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 7 Cir., 1960, 273 F.2d 699, certiorari granted 363 U.S. 837, 80 S.Ct. 1610, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723, or until the further order of this court. Jurisdiction of this aspect of the case is retained.

Insofar as the decision and order of the Board find that the petitioner Association and petitioner companies violated section 8(a) (1) and (3), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 3), and that petitioner unions violated section 8(b) (1) (A) and section 8(b) (2) of the Act, by causing Nicolas Santos Santos to be deprived of work opportunities commencing in October 1957, and that the petitioner unions also engaged in an independent violation of section 8(b) (1) (A) by coercive statements to Santos, the decision and order of the Board are affirmed.

[133]*133Insofar as the decision and order of the Board, except to the extent that they are affected by findings that a closed shop existed as aforesaid, rest upon findings that the petitioner Association and petitioner companies violated section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in discriminating with respect to the employment of Jose Ramos Mendez, and that the petitioner unions violated section 8(b) (2) of the Act in respect of said Jose Ramos Mendez, the question of the unlawful closed shop hiring practices being reserved, the decision and order of the Board are affirmed.

The Board is requested to submit a form of order to carry out this decision, including such modifications as to relief and remedy as are required by the reservation of the closed shop issue. If so advised, respondents may within fifteen days thereafter submit their views with respect to the order.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 F.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordas-co-v-national-labor-relations-board-cadc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack