230 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir. 1956), 11714, National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Lewisburg Chair & Furn. Co.

Docket Nº:11714, 11761.
Citation:230 F.2d 155
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Respondent. LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Case Date:February 21, 1956
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 155

230 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir. 1956)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.

LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Respondent.

LEWISBURG CHAIR & FURNITURE COMPANY, Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Nos. 11714, 11761.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

February 21, 1956

Argued Jan. 17, 1956.

James A. Ryan, Washington, D.C. (Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on the brief), for National Labor Relations Board.

John F. Dumont, Little Falls N.J. (Joseph M. McNerney, McNerney, Page & Vanderlin, Williamsport, Pa., on the brief), for Lewisburg Chair & Furniture Co.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.

This is a labor board case. The National Labor Relations Board is petitioning for enforcement of an order made against Lewisburg Chair and Furniture Company. The Company, in turn, petitions the court to set aside the order.

There is no new point of law in this case. The questions involved are fact questions only. That does not relieve us of responsibility for examination of the record and an appraisal of the arguments made both for enforcement and setting aside. In this we are guided

Page 156

by the Supreme Court's decision in Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., Feb. 26, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. See also, N.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 2 Cir., July 13, 1951, 190 F.2d 429.

There is no basis in the long record (the appendix submitted is 652 printed pages) for a claim of bias on the part of the trial examiner. The hearing was extended. Each side was given full opportunity for examination and cross- examination. The examiner was prompt in his rulings and completely impartial. When the lawyers began wrangling he got the hearing back on its track again. The feeling that the trier of the fact, be he baseball umpire, trial judge fact, hearing officer, is biased is not uncommon for one against whom decision has gone. This case presents nothing more than that on this point.

The entire controversy centers around the discharge of two employees named Moyer and Snyder. These man were discharged by the Company's management upon the alleged ground that they had falsified their production...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP