National Labor Relations Board v. Thomas McMahon D/B/A McMahon Sales Co.

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Thomas McMahon D/B/A McMahon Sales Co.

428 F.2d 1213, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2684, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 1970

Docket23644

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 428 F.2d 1213 (National Labor Relations Board v. Thomas McMahon D/B/A McMahon Sales Co.) 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. Thomas McMahon D/B/A McMahon Sales Co., 428 F.2d 1213, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2684, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In its petition seeking enforcement of its order against respondent, the Board contends that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s findings that (1) respondent violated National Labor Relations Act § 8(a) (5) and § 8(a) (1) by refusing to bargain with the union; (2) respondent violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and threatening employee Reveles concerning his union activities; and (3) respondent violated § 8(a) (3) and § 8(a) (1) of the Act by discharging Reveles because of his union activities and that Reveles is entitled to reinstatement with back pay. 1

The first point has become moot since the application for enforcement has been filed with this court, because the respondent has ceased doing business, a fact brought to the court’s attention at oral argument. Enforcement of an order to bargain directed to a defunct organization would be futile. That portion of the petition seeking enforcement of the order directed to the claimed section 8(a) (5) and section 8(a) (1) violation is, sua sponte, dismissed. Similarly, no prospective reinstatement shall be required so long as no further business is conducted by the McMahon’s Sales Co. enterprise. (Cf. Russell Coal & Clay Co. (1967) 165 NLRB No. 128, 1967 CCH NLRB if 21,566; American Auto-Felt Corp. (1966) 158 NLRB 1628, 1966 CCH NLRB If 20,469.)

We have reviewed the record, and we have concluded that it amply sustains the Board’s findings relating to respondent’s unlawfully interrogating and threatening Reveles and discharging him because of his union activity. Whether or not Reveles is entitled to any backpay and, if so, the amount to which he may be entitled cannot be determined from the record before us. The backpay questions will be considered during compliance proceedings (Cf. NLRB v. Local 776, IATSE (Film Editors) (9th Cir.) 303 F.2d 513, 521, cert. denied (1962) 371 U.S. 826, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65).

The order of the Board, other than that part of the order directing respondent to bargain, will be enforced.

1

. The Board’s order is reported, 167 NLRB No. 78.

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

PER CURIAM:

In its petition seeking enforcement of its order against respondent, the Board contends that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s findings that (1) respondent violated National Labor Relations Act § 8(a) (5) and § 8(a) (1) by refusing to bargain with the union; (2) respondent violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and threatening employee Reveles concerning his union activities; and (3) respondent violated § 8(a) (3) and § 8(a) (1) of the Act by discharging Reveles because of his union activities and that Reveles is entitled to reinstatement with back pay. 1

The first point has become moot since the application for enforcement has been filed with this court, because the respondent has ceased doing business, a fact brought to the court’s attention at oral argument. Enforcement of an order to bargain directed to a defunct organization would be futile. That portion of the petition seeking enforcement of the order directed to the claimed section 8(a) (5) and section 8(a) (1) violation is, sua sponte, dismissed. Similarly, no prospective reinstatement shall be required so long as no further business is conducted by the McMahon’s Sales Co. enterprise. (Cf. Russell Coal & Clay Co. (1967) 165 NLRB No. 128, 1967 CCH NLRB if 21,566; American Auto-Felt Corp. (1966) 158 NLRB 1628, 1966 CCH NLRB If 20,469.)

We have reviewed the record, and we have concluded that it amply sustains the Board’s findings relating to respondent’s unlawfully interrogating and threatening Reveles and discharging him because of his union activity. Whether or not Reveles is entitled to any backpay and, if so, the amount to which he may be entitled cannot be determined from the record before us. The backpay questions will be considered during compliance proceedings (Cf. NLRB v. Local 776, IATSE (Film Editors) (9th Cir.) 303 F.2d 513, 521, cert. denied (1962) 371 U.S. 826, 83 S.Ct. 47, 9 L.Ed.2d 65).

The order of the Board, other than that part of the order directing respondent to bargain, will be enforced.

1

. The Board’s order is reported, 167 NLRB No. 78.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 F.2d 1213, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2684, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-thomas-mcmahon-dba-mcmahon-sales-co-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack