Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 282 v. Charles Plink & Son
This text of 15 Conn. Supp. 339 (Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 282 v. Charles Plink & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There can be little doubt that the defendants were actuated by motives other than an overweening sympathy with the plaintiff’s objectives. Yet it seems to the court that their conduct neither violates the letter nor the spirit of fair labor practices. The net result shows no subterfuge nor devious expedients.
A full, fair and impartial hearing resulted in conclusions of law and fact by the state board of labor relations that are cer' tainly dispassionate and objective.
Because the negotiations proved abortive does not mean that the employers were not bargaining in good faith. Nor can the court say 'because the board permitted an interested attorney to testify that the ultimate conclusion was vitiated.
The net result shows that the defendants acted in good faith and have adhered to a business expedient they had a right to adopt.
The appeal must be, and is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 Conn. Supp. 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/retail-wholesale-department-store-union-local-282-v-charles-plink-son-connsuperct-1948.