San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Ninth Circuit

San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

558 F.2d 976

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 10, 1977

DocketNo. 75-2929

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 558 F.2d 976 (San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) 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

San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 558 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner has petitioned for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing General Counsel’s complaint in its entirety.

Shirt Works, a jobber (contractor) in the garment industry, filed a charge with the NLRB claiming that San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO [Union] had violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(7)(C)]. The union intervened.

The petition for review challenges, in substance, the legality of the union’s picketing a garment industry jobber to require that jobber to use only union subcontractors when a few of the jobber’s employees perform similar work as its subcontractor’s employees. The administrative law judge (whose opinion was adopted by the Board), found that picketing under the peculiar circumstances of the case did not violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. This petition for review follows.

[977]*977Our analysis of the entire record convinces us that the decision adopted by the Board correctly interprets the law and properly applies it to the facts. San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, and San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc., Case No. C-CP-530, June 25, 1975, 218 NLRB No. 33, 89 LRRM 1550. We specifically agree with and emphasize the finding of the Board that the amount of production work performed by the company’s employees was de minimis.

Neither Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 100, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), nor Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Bldg. & Construction Trades Council v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 656 (CA9 1969), or cases cited by petitioner, lessen or, in any way, erode the logic of the Board’s decision.

The petition for review is denied and the order of the Board dismissing the complaint is upheld.

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

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner has petitioned for review of a decision of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing General Counsel’s complaint in its entirety.

Shirt Works, a jobber (contractor) in the garment industry, filed a charge with the NLRB claiming that San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO [Union] had violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act [29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(7)(C)]. The union intervened.

The petition for review challenges, in substance, the legality of the union’s picketing a garment industry jobber to require that jobber to use only union subcontractors when a few of the jobber’s employees perform similar work as its subcontractor’s employees. The administrative law judge (whose opinion was adopted by the Board), found that picketing under the peculiar circumstances of the case did not violate Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. This petition for review follows.

[977]*977Our analysis of the entire record convinces us that the decision adopted by the Board correctly interprets the law and properly applies it to the facts. San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, and San Francisco Shirt Works, Inc., Case No. C-CP-530, June 25, 1975, 218 NLRB No. 33, 89 LRRM 1550. We specifically agree with and emphasize the finding of the Board that the amount of production work performed by the company’s employees was de minimis.

Neither Connell Construction Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 100, 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), nor Lane-Coos-Curry-Douglas Counties Bldg. & Construction Trades Council v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 656 (CA9 1969), or cases cited by petitioner, lessen or, in any way, erode the logic of the Board’s decision.

The petition for review is denied and the order of the Board dismissing the complaint is upheld.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

558 F.2d 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-francisco-shirt-works-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca9-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack