Department & Specialty Store Employees Union v. Brown

N.D. California

Department & Specialty Store Employees Union v. Brown

187 F. Supp. 865, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3101, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3717

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California

DecidedMarch 23, 1960

DocketCiv. No. 38971

StatusPublished

This text of 187 F. Supp. 865 (Department & Specialty Store Employees Union v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department & Specialty Store Employees Union v. Brown, 187 F. Supp. 865, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3101, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3717 (N.D. Cal. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLLENBERG, District Judge.

The plaintiff complains herein that defendant, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, in ordering a representation election pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (7) (C), has exceeded his authority under the Act, and has deprived the plaintiff herein of due process under the Constitution of the United States.

The plaintiff contends that in following the provisions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) defendant is required first to afford plaintiff union a hearing on the question of whether its picketing was prohibited by Section 8(b) (7), for such picketing must be determined to exist before the expedited election procedures provided in subparagraph (C) of 8(b) (7) can be invoked. In the instant case, after pickets appeared an unfair labor practice charge was filed against plaintiff union alleging violation by the union of the provisions of 8(b) (7). The employer, within a reasonable time after commencement of the picketing, filed herein a representation petition. After investigation by defendant, the defendant determined that an object of plaintiff’s picketing was in fact recognition or organization in violation of Section 8(b) (7), and accordingly issued a notice of election to be held on March 14, 1960. It is plaintiff’s contention, as stated above, that the Regional Director should hold a hearing before direction of an election in order to determine whether or not the union had in fact engaged in conduct proscribed by 8(b) (7).

[866]*866It is the opinion of this court that the plaintiff has failed to establish the jurisdiction of this court in that it fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the National Labor Relations Act or a deprivation of due process or a derogation of its right to free speech under the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is Denied and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is discharged. ' Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is Granted.

Defendant herein shall prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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

WOLLENBERG, District Judge.

The plaintiff complains herein that defendant, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, in ordering a representation election pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (7) (C), has exceeded his authority under the Act, and has deprived the plaintiff herein of due process under the Constitution of the United States.

The plaintiff contends that in following the provisions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) defendant is required first to afford plaintiff union a hearing on the question of whether its picketing was prohibited by Section 8(b) (7), for such picketing must be determined to exist before the expedited election procedures provided in subparagraph (C) of 8(b) (7) can be invoked. In the instant case, after pickets appeared an unfair labor practice charge was filed against plaintiff union alleging violation by the union of the provisions of 8(b) (7). The employer, within a reasonable time after commencement of the picketing, filed herein a representation petition. After investigation by defendant, the defendant determined that an object of plaintiff’s picketing was in fact recognition or organization in violation of Section 8(b) (7), and accordingly issued a notice of election to be held on March 14, 1960. It is plaintiff’s contention, as stated above, that the Regional Director should hold a hearing before direction of an election in order to determine whether or not the union had in fact engaged in conduct proscribed by 8(b) (7).

[866]*866It is the opinion of this court that the plaintiff has failed to establish the jurisdiction of this court in that it fails to allege facts constituting a violation of the National Labor Relations Act or a deprivation of due process or a derogation of its right to free speech under the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is Denied and the temporary restraining order heretofore issued is discharged. ' Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is Granted.

Defendant herein shall prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F. Supp. 865, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3101, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-specialty-store-employees-union-v-brown-cand-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack