Canyon Corporation v. National Labor Rel. Board, No. 12165.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGARDNER, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit
Citation128 F.2d 953
PartiesCANYON CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
Docket NumberNo. 12165.
Decision Date30 June 1942

128 F.2d 953 (1942)

CANYON CORPORATION
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 12165.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 30, 1942.


128 F.2d 954

Alex Rentto, of Deadwood, S. D. (Robert C. Hayes, of Deadwood, S. D., on the brief), for petitioner.

L. N. D. Wells, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Roman Beck and William J. Avrutis, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSEN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner seeks review of an order entered against it under the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and the Board requests enforcement of the order.

One of petitioner's contentions is that its activities are not a part of, nor do they affect, interstate commerce, and that it therefore is not subject to the Act. Petitioner's business is that of mining, refining, and selling gold bullion. Its properties, plant, and office are located at Maitland, in the Black Hills, near Deadwood, South Dakota. It produces approximately $500,000 worth of bullion annually, which it ships by railway express from Deadwood, South Dakota, and sells to the United States mint at Denver, Colorado. The argument made here is that, under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 337, 31 U.S.C.A. § 440 et seq., gold is no longer actually an article of trade or commerce,1 and that its production and interstate shipment cannot therefore legitimately be regarded as "affecting commerce", within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.

Such a construction of the Act would be a strained one and out of harmony with the fundamental policy which Congress was attempting to achieve in the general field of industrial relations. The production and shipment of gold bullion by a mine and refinery in one state, for the purpose of selling it to a United States mint in another state, is, in our opinion, plainly and literally "commerce" within the definition of section 2(6) of the Act,2 even though the United States may be the only customer to which such bullion can legally be sold.3 As a matter of fact, however, the Treasury Department has, by appropriate regulations,

128 F.2d 955
authorized the sale of refined gold on the part of producers, under proper licenses, to certain private users throughout the country for industrial, professional and artistic purposes.4 In addition to all of the foregoing, the record shows also that petitioner annually sells and ships approximately $5,000 worth of slag from its plant to a smelting company at East Helena, Montana, and further that, out of a total of $134,000 worth of materials and supplies purchased annually for use in petitioner's operations, $64,000 worth are transported to its plant from outside the state. The Board considered all of these facts together, as it had a right to do, and from the whole concluded that petitioner's operations clearly affected commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that a labor dispute at its plant, interrupting its operations, would tend to hinder and obstruct commerce and the free flow thereof. This finding and conclusion were not only warranted, but we think compelled, on the facts and under the law.5

Petitioner's next contention is that there is no substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that it had interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them under the Act, and that it had discriminatorily discharged two employees, whom the Board ordered reinstated with back pay. On the first point, there was evidence from which the Board could infer, and find as a fact, general hostility on the part of petitioner to union organization; efforts to discourage such organization in the plant; attempts by a foreman to persuade men under him to withdraw from the union; threats to shut down the mine if it was unionized; efforts to circumvent and neutralize union organization by "hand-picking" and dealing with a selected group of employees on the question that had prompted union entry into the plant; attempts to influence the result of the election which was to be held at the plant, by offers on the part of the mine superintendent to bet with employees that the union would lose the election; surveillance of and report to the employer on a union meeting by a chief clerk in the vice-president's office, with no attempt on the part of such employee at the hearing to explain the incident; and other significant events and circumstances also which are set out in the Board's decision and order, 33 N.L.R.B. 163, but which need not be detailed here. Petitioner attempts to discuss these incidents individually and in isolation, in order to minimize the force of their implication, but the Board was not thus...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board, No. 12740.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 1, 1944
    ...interpretation. Onan v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 728; Canyon Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953. Petitioner was in the process of establishing a new plant in which the selection of a union as a bargaining agent was progressing steadily from......
  • Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 77-2406
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 10, 1979
    ...904, 905; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc., 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 363, 366, 367; Canyon Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953, 955, 956; Sperry Gyroscope Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 129 F.2d 922, 931. See Warehousemen's Union v. N.L.R.B., 74 App.D.C. 28, 121 F.2d 84, 92-9......
  • National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Laister-Kauffmann A. Corp., No. 12784.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 7, 1944
    ...119 F.2d 379, 381; American Smelting & Ref. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 680, 684, 685; Canyon Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953, 955; Gamble-Robinson Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 588, 590; N. L. R. B. v. Locomotive Finished Material Co., 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 233,......
  • American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Contra Costa County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1969
    ...Walling v. Haile Gold Mines (4th Cir. 1943) 136 F.2d 102, 103--104; and Canyon Corporation v. National Labor Rel. Board (8th Cir. 1942) 128 F.2d 953, 954--955.) At the appellate level the courts have consistently recognized that there was still commerce in gold. In Fox the Circuit Court of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Elastic Stop Nut Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Board, No. 12740.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 1, 1944
    ...interpretation. Onan v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 728; Canyon Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953. Petitioner was in the process of establishing a new plant in which the selection of a union as a bargaining agent was progressing steadily from......
  • Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., No. 77-2406
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 10, 1979
    ...904, 905; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, Inc., 6 Cir., 130 F.2d 363, 366, 367; Canyon Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953, 955, 956; Sperry Gyroscope Co. v. N.L.R.B., 2 Cir., 129 F.2d 922, 931. See Warehousemen's Union v. N.L.R.B., 74 App.D.C. 28, 121 F.2d 84, 92-9......
  • National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Laister-Kauffmann A. Corp., No. 12784.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • September 7, 1944
    ...119 F.2d 379, 381; American Smelting & Ref. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 126 F.2d 680, 684, 685; Canyon Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 953, 955; Gamble-Robinson Co. v. N. L. R. B., 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 588, 590; N. L. R. B. v. Locomotive Finished Material Co., 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 233,......
  • American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Contra Costa County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1969
    ...Walling v. Haile Gold Mines (4th Cir. 1943) 136 F.2d 102, 103--104; and Canyon Corporation v. National Labor Rel. Board (8th Cir. 1942) 128 F.2d 953, 954--955.) At the appellate level the courts have consistently recognized that there was still commerce in gold. In Fox the Circuit Court of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT