National Labor Relations Board v. Sidney Seltzer and Ralph Seltzer D/B/A G. & S. Electric Company

Second Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Sidney Seltzer and Ralph Seltzer D/B/A G. & S. Electric Company

296 F.2d 125

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 1961

Docket80, Docket 26980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 F.2d 125 (National Labor Relations Board v. Sidney Seltzer and Ralph Seltzer D/B/A G. & S. Electric Company) 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. Sidney Seltzer and Ralph Seltzer D/B/A G. & S. Electric Company, 296 F.2d 125 (2d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board’s decision and order are reported in 130 N. L. R. B. No. 73. The Board found that the respondent had violated Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 5) and ordered it to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take specified affirmative action. The respondent filed no brief in opposition to the petition but Mr. Sidney Seltzer, who is not a lawyer, appeared on oral argument and stated that he and his partner had complied with the Board’s order and were unable to ascertain from the Board in what respect it claimed they had not complied. When asked by the court how an order of enforcement would be harmful if the respondent had already complied with the Board’s order, he replied that it would not be harmful.

In N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 179 F.2d 221 it was held that the court need not refuse enforcement because, pendente lite, the original dispute has been settled. This decision was cited with approval in N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563, 567, 70 S.Ct. 826, 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067. Accordingly, 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 Board’s decision and order are reported in 130 N. L. R. B. No. 73. The Board found that the respondent had violated Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 5) and ordered it to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and take specified affirmative action. The respondent filed no brief in opposition to the petition but Mr. Sidney Seltzer, who is not a lawyer, appeared on oral argument and stated that he and his partner had complied with the Board’s order and were unable to ascertain from the Board in what respect it claimed they had not complied. When asked by the court how an order of enforcement would be harmful if the respondent had already complied with the Board’s order, he replied that it would not be harmful.

In N. L. R. B. v. General Motors Corp., 2 Cir., 179 F.2d 221 it was held that the court need not refuse enforcement because, pendente lite, the original dispute has been settled. This decision was cited with approval in N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563, 567, 70 S.Ct. 826, 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067. Accordingly, the petition for enforcement is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-sidney-seltzer-and-ralph-seltzer-dba-g-ca2-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack