Tube City Taxi & Transfer Co., Inc. Case

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tube City Taxi & Transfer Co., Inc. Case

39 A.2d 832, 350 Pa. 601, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 608, 15 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 677

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 28, 1944

DocketAppeal, 159

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.2d 832 (Tube City Taxi & Transfer Co., Inc. Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tube City Taxi & Transfer Co., Inc. Case, 39 A.2d 832, 350 Pa. 601, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 608, 15 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 677 (Pa. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from tbe dismissal of tbe petition of Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, a corporation, asking tbe court to set aside an order of tbe Labor Relations Board directing petitioner to desist from certain violations of Section 6, clauses (a), (d) and (e) of the Labor Relations Act: Act of June 1, 1937, P. L. 1168, 43 PS section 211.6. Tbe assignments of error are to tbe order, and to tbe overruling of three conclusions of law. They follow from tbe findings of fact, which we take to be unchallenged, because not assigned for error.

Briefly stated, it would appear that Raymond Patterson conducted a taxicab business in McKeesport in and prior to 1939; that when tbe time arrived to renew this contract with tbe Union, differences arose which could not be composed. He thereupon organized tbe appellant corporation, transferred to it bis taxicab business in exchange for shares of stock, sold a minority of tbe shares to certain former employees and thereafter refused to bargain with tbe Union. Tbe Board took testimony and made findings of fact and conclusions of law and, after making corrections pursuant to bearing on exceptions, made tbe order subsequently reviewed by tbe learned court below and now before this court. Tbe case is determined by tbe basic findings of fact: in substance, it was found that as part of tbe effort to defeat the dissenting employees, tbe corporation was organized and tbe business transferred to it in circumstances which *603 continued Mr. Patterson in control, actively directing the business and continuing the hostility to the Union which the Board found he had continuously manifested in violation of the act. As appellant does not now com-, plain of the findings of fact, the only question is whether the order was within the statute. There is no doubt of that.

Order affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from tbe dismissal of tbe petition of Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, a corporation, asking tbe court to set aside an order of tbe Labor Relations Board directing petitioner to desist from certain violations of Section 6, clauses (a), (d) and (e) of the Labor Relations Act: Act of June 1, 1937, P. L. 1168, 43 PS section 211.6. Tbe assignments of error are to tbe order, and to tbe overruling of three conclusions of law. They follow from tbe findings of fact, which we take to be unchallenged, because not assigned for error.

Briefly stated, it would appear that Raymond Patterson conducted a taxicab business in McKeesport in and prior to 1939; that when tbe time arrived to renew this contract with tbe Union, differences arose which could not be composed. He thereupon organized tbe appellant corporation, transferred to it bis taxicab business in exchange for shares of stock, sold a minority of tbe shares to certain former employees and thereafter refused to bargain with tbe Union. Tbe Board took testimony and made findings of fact and conclusions of law and, after making corrections pursuant to bearing on exceptions, made tbe order subsequently reviewed by tbe learned court below and now before this court. Tbe case is determined by tbe basic findings of fact: in substance, it was found that as part of tbe effort to defeat the dissenting employees, tbe corporation was organized and tbe business transferred to it in circumstances which *603 continued Mr. Patterson in control, actively directing the business and continuing the hostility to the Union which the Board found he had continuously manifested in violation of the act. As appellant does not now com-, plain of the findings of fact, the only question is whether the order was within the statute. There is no doubt of that.

Order affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.2d 832, 350 Pa. 601, 1944 Pa. LEXIS 608, 15 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tube-city-taxi-transfer-co-inc-case-pa-1944.