Lyons v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 1521.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 1521.,1521. |
| Citation | 90 F.2d 321 |
| Parties | LYONS et al. v. EAGLE-PICHER LEAD CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Laurence A. Knapp, of Washington, D. C. (Charles Fahy, Robert B. Watts, and John J. Babe, all of Washington D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
A. C. Wallace, of Miami, Okl. (A. Scott Thompson, of Miami, Okl., and John H. Flanagan, Jr., of Carthage, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
On March 25, 1936, certain Locals of the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging unfair labor practices affecting interstate commerce in violation of the National Labor Relations Act of 19351 by the Eagle-Picher Lead Company and the Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Company.2
On May 5, 1936, the Board issued its complaint against the Companies in which it alleged: That the Mining Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of mining lead and zinc ores and smelting and refining lead and zinc concentrates and secondary lead bearing materials; that it owns and operates lead and zinc mines in Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma; that it engages in mining and concentrating gold, silver, lead and zinc ores at Ruby, Arizona; that it owns and operates mines of barytes at Mineral Point, Missouri; that it owns and operates a mill at Picher, Oklahoma, in which it mills the ores from its mines; that it owns and operates a plant at Galena, Kansas, in which it smelts lead concentrates and secondary lead bearing materials and manufactures pig lead, sublimed white and sublimed blue lead; that it operates a smelter plant at Henryetta, Oklahoma, where it smelts concentrates and produces slab zinc; and that in the course of such operations it causes lead and zinc ores and concentrates and pig lead, and sublimed white and blue lead to be transported in interstate commerce.
In its complaint the Board further alleged that the Lead Company is an Ohio corporation; that it owns all the common stock of the Mining Company; that the Lead Company is engaged in the business of smelting and refining secondary lead bearing materials, the production, sale and distribution of lead and zinc paint pigments, storage batteries, oxides, plumbers' lead goods, insulating materials, and white, red and blue lead in oil; that it manufactures lead oxide at Newark, New Jersey, lead oxides, plumbers' lead goods and insulating material at Joplin, Missouri, lithopone at Argo, Illinois, plumbers' lead goods, lead carbonate and white, blue and red lead in oil at Cincinnati, Ohio, and plumbers' lead goods at Chicago, Illinois; that it owns and operates a lead oxide and secondary smelting plant and a lead carbonate plant at East St. Louis, Illinois; that it owns and operates a plant for the manufacturing of zinc oxide and sulphuric acid at Hillsboro, Illinois; that it warehouses its principal products at Chicago, Illinois; and that in the course of such operations it causes lead and zinc and other raw materials to be purchased and transported in interstate commerce and causes lead products produced by it to be sold and transported in interstate commerce.
In its complaint the Board further alleged that the Companies are engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act affecting commerce as defined in that act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation Same v. Kenzie
...86 F.2d 862; compare Bowen v. James Vernor Co., 6 Cir., 89 F.2d 968; Carlisle Lumber Co. v. Hope, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 92; Lyons v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 10 Cir., 90 F.2d 321. 2 A Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at Bethlehem, 3 A substituted bill of complaint was file......
-
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...Interestingly, the argument was also rejected before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Myers. See, e.g., Lyons v. Eagle–Picher Lead Co., 90 F.2d 321, 323 (10th Cir.1937) (in an employer's suit to enjoin the NLRB, its members, its trial examiner, and its attorney from prosecuting an u......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. MA Hanna Co.
...for the Board to determine upon the evidence. Other contentions made with regard to jurisdiction are without merit. Lyons v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 10 Cir., 90 F.2d 321. Upon request of the Board to modify Sec. 2 (b) of the order, to require respondents to post notices that they will not en......
- Belden Mfg. Co. v. Glade, 6092.