National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 1261

Second Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 1261

222 F.2d 542

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1955

DocketNo. 288, Docket 23438

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 542 (National Labor Relations Board v. Local No. 1261) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Local No. 1261, 222 F.2d 542 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record as a whole supports the Board’s conclusions that the alleged .agreement existed and was enforced in ■ order to “encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.” Much depended on evaluation of the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses who testified before the Trial Examiner, and we would be reluctant in .any case to overrule the Examiner’s and the Board’s resolution of this conflict. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; National Labor Relations Board v. Local 3, Bloomingdale, Dist. 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, CIO, 2 Cir., 216 F.2d 285. Actually the Board, with one mem[543]*543ber dissenting, reversed the Examiner in holding the Union’s local District Council also liable. The result was thus reached with care and discrimination.

The petition for enforcement is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The record as a whole supports the Board’s conclusions that the alleged .agreement existed and was enforced in ■ order to “encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.” Much depended on evaluation of the conflicting testimony of the various witnesses who testified before the Trial Examiner, and we would be reluctant in .any case to overrule the Examiner’s and the Board’s resolution of this conflict. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; National Labor Relations Board v. Local 3, Bloomingdale, Dist. 65, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, CIO, 2 Cir., 216 F.2d 285. Actually the Board, with one mem[543]*543ber dissenting, reversed the Examiner in holding the Union’s local District Council also liable. The result was thus reached with care and discrimination.

The petition for enforcement is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F.2d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-local-no-1261-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack