H. B. Zachry Company v. National Labor Relations Board

Fifth Circuit

H. B. Zachry Company v. National Labor Relations Board

377 F.2d 670, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1967

Docket23225_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 377 F.2d 670 (H. B. Zachry Company v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H. B. Zachry Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 377 F.2d 670, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6228 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us upon the petition of Zachry to review, and the cross-petition of the Bpard for enforcement of the Board’s order. 1

It would serve no useful purpose to detail the facts, circumstances, admissions and inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence.

Substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole sustains the Board’s findings that the company discharged six employees for engaging in protected concerted action in violation of § 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.

We have considered and find to be without merit petitioner’s contentions (1) that the purpose of the walkout of the six employees was to force the employer to assign certain work to electrician’s helpers rather than to laborers and that, therefore, the walkout was an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 (b) (4), (d); and (2) that it was denied due process by the Board’s refusal to grant oral argument. Morgan v. United States, 1936, 298 U.S. 468, 481, 56 S.Ct.. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288; NLRB v. Clausen, 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 439, 444, cert. den. 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 108, 96 L.Ed. 653.

With respect to the Regional Director’s refusal to permit petitioner to* take depositions the company failed to-file due exception as required by § 10(e) of the Act. It therefore cannot raise the-point now. NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 1953, 344 U.S. 344, 350, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377; NLRB v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 385, 387-389, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739; United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, 1952, 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54.

The Board’s order is Enforced.

1

. 155 N.L.R.B. No. 121, issued Nov. 29,1965.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case is before us upon the petition of Zachry to review, and the cross-petition of the Bpard for enforcement of the Board’s order. 1

It would serve no useful purpose to detail the facts, circumstances, admissions and inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence.

Substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole sustains the Board’s findings that the company discharged six employees for engaging in protected concerted action in violation of § 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.

We have considered and find to be without merit petitioner’s contentions (1) that the purpose of the walkout of the six employees was to force the employer to assign certain work to electrician’s helpers rather than to laborers and that, therefore, the walkout was an unfair labor practice in violation of § 8 (b) (4), (d); and (2) that it was denied due process by the Board’s refusal to grant oral argument. Morgan v. United States, 1936, 298 U.S. 468, 481, 56 S.Ct.. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288; NLRB v. Clausen, 3 Cir., 188 F.2d 439, 444, cert. den. 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 108, 96 L.Ed. 653.

With respect to the Regional Director’s refusal to permit petitioner to* take depositions the company failed to-file due exception as required by § 10(e) of the Act. It therefore cannot raise the-point now. NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 1953, 344 U.S. 344, 350, 73 S.Ct. 287, 97 L.Ed. 377; NLRB v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 385, 387-389, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739; United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, 1952, 344 U.S. 33, 37, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54.

The Board’s order is Enforced.

1

. 155 N.L.R.B. No. 121, issued Nov. 29,1965.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.2d 670, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2448, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-b-zachry-company-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack