Partin v. National Labor Relations Board

Fifth Circuit

Partin v. National Labor Relations Board

356 F.2d 512, 61 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2344

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 1966

DocketNo. 21970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 F.2d 512 (Partin v. National Labor Relations Board) 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

Partin v. National Labor Relations Board, 356 F.2d 512, 61 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2344 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner seeks to review and set aside an order of the Board which found that he violated § 8(b) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., acting as agent for the Teamsters Union, Local No. 5, by causing Ryder Truck Lines to discharge Calvin C. Clary because Clary had participated in activity opposing petitioner’s handling of union funds and affairs. The Board requests enforcement of its order. Its decision and order are reported at 148 NLRB No. 88.

In addition, petitioner Partin has filed a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence because neither petitioner nor his counsel were present when the matter was heard before the Trial Examiner. Petitioner’s counsel claims that he was advised by someone not connected with the case that the scheduled hearing had been postponed; therefore, he did not attend. When the docket was called in this Court, counsel for petitioner was not present. This Court delayed hearing the case for a reasonable time after court opened to allow additional time for petitioner’s counsel to appear. He had not appeared when court recessed on this day. We deem it unnecessary to make a detailed factual statement with respect to the motion except to say that neither the petitioner nor his counsel appear to regard seriously the matter of responding to dockets or scheduled hearings. In addition to other reasons for denying the motion, the petitioner has not shown that the evidence he seeks to adduce is material or that there were reasonable grounds for his failure to adduce such evidence before the Board. The motion is denied.

[513]*513There was ample evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding and the Board properly denied petitioner’s request to reopen the hearing. The petition for review is denied and the Board’s order is enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner seeks to review and set aside an order of the Board which found that he violated § 8(b) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., acting as agent for the Teamsters Union, Local No. 5, by causing Ryder Truck Lines to discharge Calvin C. Clary because Clary had participated in activity opposing petitioner’s handling of union funds and affairs. The Board requests enforcement of its order. Its decision and order are reported at 148 NLRB No. 88.

In addition, petitioner Partin has filed a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence because neither petitioner nor his counsel were present when the matter was heard before the Trial Examiner. Petitioner’s counsel claims that he was advised by someone not connected with the case that the scheduled hearing had been postponed; therefore, he did not attend. When the docket was called in this Court, counsel for petitioner was not present. This Court delayed hearing the case for a reasonable time after court opened to allow additional time for petitioner’s counsel to appear. He had not appeared when court recessed on this day. We deem it unnecessary to make a detailed factual statement with respect to the motion except to say that neither the petitioner nor his counsel appear to regard seriously the matter of responding to dockets or scheduled hearings. In addition to other reasons for denying the motion, the petitioner has not shown that the evidence he seeks to adduce is material or that there were reasonable grounds for his failure to adduce such evidence before the Board. The motion is denied.

[513]*513There was ample evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding and the Board properly denied petitioner’s request to reopen the hearing. The petition for review is denied and the Board’s order is enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F.2d 512, 61 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partin-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack