Rafael Vega v. National Labor Relations Board

First Circuit

Rafael Vega v. National Labor Relations Board

341 F.2d 576, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2439, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1965

Docket6289_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 341 F.2d 576 (Rafael Vega v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rafael Vega v. National Labor Relations Board, 341 F.2d 576, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2439, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449 (1st Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review by five discharged employees whose complaint was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board raises the single question of whether petitioners were supervisors, and hence not within the protection of the Act. The trial examiner, in a careful and detailed report, reached the conclusion that they were not supervisors. On review by a three-member panel two members, although in most respects adopting the subsidiary findings of the trial examiner, reached the opposite conclusion. Crimptex, Inc., 145 N.L.R.B. No. 50, December 16, 1963. One member would have accepted the trial examiner’s report in toto.

No purpose would be served by'our repeating the findings. As counsel for the Board candidly admits, the question is close. However, we have repeatedly stated that a broad discretion must be given to the Board on this issue. In this case we regard it as of considerable importance that if the petitioners were not supervisors the company’s employees were entirely without supervision a large part of the time. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Supreme Dyeing and Finishing Corp., 1 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 493. In such circumstances it was not unreasonable to conclude that even the relatively small amount of supervisory power conferred upon and exercised by petitioners made them representatives of the employer.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review by five discharged employees whose complaint was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board raises the single question of whether petitioners were supervisors, and hence not within the protection of the Act. The trial examiner, in a careful and detailed report, reached the conclusion that they were not supervisors. On review by a three-member panel two members, although in most respects adopting the subsidiary findings of the trial examiner, reached the opposite conclusion. Crimptex, Inc., 145 N.L.R.B. No. 50, December 16, 1963. One member would have accepted the trial examiner’s report in toto.

No purpose would be served by'our repeating the findings. As counsel for the Board candidly admits, the question is close. However, we have repeatedly stated that a broad discretion must be given to the Board on this issue. In this case we regard it as of considerable importance that if the petitioners were not supervisors the company’s employees were entirely without supervision a large part of the time. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Supreme Dyeing and Finishing Corp., 1 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 493. In such circumstances it was not unreasonable to conclude that even the relatively small amount of supervisory power conferred upon and exercised by petitioners made them representatives of the employer.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F.2d 576, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2439, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-vega-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca1-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack