National Labor Relations Board v. United Packinghouse Workers

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. United Packinghouse Workers

274 F.2d 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1960

DocketNo. 17842

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 F.2d 816 (National Labor Relations Board v. United Packinghouse Workers) 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

National Labor Relations Board v. United Packinghouse Workers, 274 F.2d 816 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board seeks enforcement of its order, 123 NLRB 53, holding that the [817]*817respondent Union violated § 8(b) (1) (A) while conducting a strike at the Tuscaloosa plant of the Employer. 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b) (1) (A). The “unlawful conduct consisted of inciting, encouraging and participating in mass picketing of the Employer’s premises; threatening to assault and assaulting nonstriking employees; permitting pickets to carry heavy sticks and clubs; interfering with ingress and egress at the Employer’s premises; threatening employees of the Employer’s Selma plant when they approached the picket line; and physically preventing supervisors from entering upon the Company’s premises.”

The Union does not seriously question either the conduct, its unlawful violent character, or Union responsibility for it. Indeed, it has no valid defense. The Regional Director refused to dismiss the charge upon joint application for withdrawal filed by the charging party and Union after settlement of the strike but before hearing. But the record does not show an abuse of the Board’s discretion to determine whether it would be in the public interest to abandon a proceeding because of an asserted private settlement. See N. L. R. B. v. Federal Engineering Co., 6 Cir, 1946, 153 F.2d 233, 234; N. L. R. B. v. E. A. Laboratories, 2 Cir, 1951, 188 F.2d 885, 887, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 871, 72 S.Ct. 110, 96 L.Ed. 655. “The Board was created not to adjudicate private controversies but to advance the public interest * * N. L. R. B. v. Fant Milling Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 307-308, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1183, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1248, enforced on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773. The assertion that the Union has complied with the order neither makes it moot nor deprives the Court of the power to issue the order. N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 1950, 339 U.S. 563, 567-568, 70 S.Ct. 826, 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067, 1071-1072; N. L. R. B. v. Local 926, Int. Union of Operating Engineers, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 418, 420.

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Board seeks enforcement of its order, 123 NLRB 53, holding that the [817]*817respondent Union violated § 8(b) (1) (A) while conducting a strike at the Tuscaloosa plant of the Employer. 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(b) (1) (A). The “unlawful conduct consisted of inciting, encouraging and participating in mass picketing of the Employer’s premises; threatening to assault and assaulting nonstriking employees; permitting pickets to carry heavy sticks and clubs; interfering with ingress and egress at the Employer’s premises; threatening employees of the Employer’s Selma plant when they approached the picket line; and physically preventing supervisors from entering upon the Company’s premises.”

The Union does not seriously question either the conduct, its unlawful violent character, or Union responsibility for it. Indeed, it has no valid defense. The Regional Director refused to dismiss the charge upon joint application for withdrawal filed by the charging party and Union after settlement of the strike but before hearing. But the record does not show an abuse of the Board’s discretion to determine whether it would be in the public interest to abandon a proceeding because of an asserted private settlement. See N. L. R. B. v. Federal Engineering Co., 6 Cir, 1946, 153 F.2d 233, 234; N. L. R. B. v. E. A. Laboratories, 2 Cir, 1951, 188 F.2d 885, 887, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 871, 72 S.Ct. 110, 96 L.Ed. 655. “The Board was created not to adjudicate private controversies but to advance the public interest * * N. L. R. B. v. Fant Milling Co., 1959, 360 U.S. 301, 307-308, 79 S.Ct. 1179, 1183, 3 L.Ed.2d 1243, 1248, enforced on remand, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 773. The assertion that the Union has complied with the order neither makes it moot nor deprives the Court of the power to issue the order. N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 1950, 339 U.S. 563, 567-568, 70 S.Ct. 826, 833, 94 L.Ed. 1067, 1071-1072; N. L. R. B. v. Local 926, Int. Union of Operating Engineers, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 418, 420.

Enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-united-packinghouse-workers-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack