205 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1953), 13486, National Labor Relations Board v. Buzza-Cardozo

Docket Nº:13486.
Citation:205 F.2d 889
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BUZZA-CARDOZO.
Case Date:July 15, 1953
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 889

205 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1953)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

v.

BUZZA-CARDOZO.

No. 13486.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 15, 1953

         Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1953.

         George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Bernard Dunau and Abraham Siegel, Washington, D.C. (Frederick Reel, Washington, D.C., argued), for petitioner.

         Hill, Farrer & Burrell, Carl M. Gould, Los Angeles, Cal. (Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., argued), for respondent.

         Before MATHEWS, HEALY, and BONE, Circuit Judges.

         HEALY, Circuit Judge.

         The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order requiring reinstatement of a group of 11 employees found to have been discriminatorily discharged by respondent.

         Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of greeting cards. In the autumn

Page 890

of 1950 it instituted a bonus-incentive wage plan. This plan was not satisfactory to the employees in its silk-screen department, and on January 17, 1951, these employees met with the management and demanded a wage increase. When the demand was refused they informed the management that they would stay away from work the next day, and the next day 11 of the employees in that department did not report for work. Those not reporting were immediately discharged and were so informed. Subsequently others were hired in their stead.

         The Board found that in discharging the employees the respondent had violated§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1, 3). As respects the § 8(a)(1) violation, it was found that the strike was an economic strike, that the employees had engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection and that in discharging them respondent had interfered with the employees in the exercise of their right to engage in such concerted activities. The finding with respect to a violation of § 8(a)(3) will be touched on later.

         Respondent, relying on N.L.R.B. v. Brashear Freight Lines, 8 Cir., 119 F.2d 379, contends that the concerted activity was a wildcat strike and as such unprotected. That case, however, is authority for no more than the proposition that the employees who struck did so at the risk of having their places filled with new employees during the pendency of the strike. There is a difference...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP