85 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1936), 425, N.L.R.B. v. Friedman-Harry Marks Clothing Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:425, 426.
Citation:85 F.2d 1
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., Inc. [*]
Case Date:July 13, 1936
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

85 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1936)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

v.

FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., Inc. [*]

Nos. 425, 426.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 13, 1936

J. Warren Madden, Chairman, Charles Fahy, General Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel, and Thomas I. Emerson, all of Washington, D.C., and Laurence A. Knapp, of New York City, and A. L. Wirin, for petitioner.

Weinberg & Sweeten, of Baltimore, Md. (Leonard Weinberg, Harry J. Green, and Zanvyl Krieger, all of Baltimore, Md., of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, a Virginia corporation, is a manufacturer of men's clothing with its principal office and its factory in Richmond, Va. Practically all the raw materials used are brought from other states into Virginia, where respondent manufactures them into men's clothing. About 83 per cent. of the manufactured products are sold f. o. b. Richmond, to customers located in states other than Virginia.

Two sets of charges were filed with petitioner's local regional director by the

Page 2

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, a labor union of workers in the men's clothing industry, in which it was alleged that the respondent violated the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) by discharging from its employ, and discriminating against 29 out of 800 of its employees, because they had engaged in union activities. The board filed complaints under section 10(b) of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 160(b), and after a hearing respondent was found to have violated the act and was ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices.

Petitioner's theory is that the respondent is engaged in interstate commerce because of the shipment of raw materials to it from other states and the shipment of its finished products to other states, and, in addition, that the flow of commerce doctrine, as exemplified in Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518, brings this manufacturer within the federal power to regulate commerce. Respondent contends that the National Labor Relations Act, as applied to it, is unconstitutional and therefore invalid, and that the attempt to enforce its provisions against it is illegal.

It is shown that the alleged unfair labor practices complained of occurred in the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP