National Labor Relations Board v. Hazen

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Hazen

203 F.2d 807, 32 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2053, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1953

Docket13349_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 F.2d 807 (National Labor Relations Board v. Hazen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Labor Relations Board v. Hazen, 203 F.2d 807, 32 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2053, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3542 (9th Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are reported in 95 N.L.R.B. 1034. Two questions are presented: first, whether the respondents’ business was sufficiently interstate to give the Board jurisdiction, and second, whether there was proof of the alleged unfair labor practices. We are of the opinion that the showing as to the interstate character of the business was sufficient to avoid the de minimis rule. As for the alleged unfair labor practices, we think that the threats that if the employees were organized sundry miscellaneous benefits would no longer be furnished and that vacations would be withheld evidence violation of § 8(a)(1). The record also shows a threat of discharge. Respondents assert that there was no violation of § 8(a)(3) in that the employees in question quit of their own accord and *808 were not discharged. This issue relates to a question of fact which was for the Board and we cannot disturb its finding.

Order enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are reported in 95 N.L.R.B. 1034. Two questions are presented: first, whether the respondents’ business was sufficiently interstate to give the Board jurisdiction, and second, whether there was proof of the alleged unfair labor practices. We are of the opinion that the showing as to the interstate character of the business was sufficient to avoid the de minimis rule. As for the alleged unfair labor practices, we think that the threats that if the employees were organized sundry miscellaneous benefits would no longer be furnished and that vacations would be withheld evidence violation of § 8(a)(1). The record also shows a threat of discharge. Respondents assert that there was no violation of § 8(a)(3) in that the employees in question quit of their own accord and *808 were not discharged. This issue relates to a question of fact which was for the Board and we cannot disturb its finding.

Order enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 F.2d 807, 32 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2053, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-hazen-ca9-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack