Local Union No. 12 v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 10310.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtKERNER, FINNEGAN, and LINDLEY, Circuit
Citation189 F.2d 1
PartiesLOCAL UNION NO. 12, PROGRESSIVE MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIST. NO. 1 v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
Decision Date11 June 1951
Docket NumberNo. 10310.

189 F.2d 1 (1951)

LOCAL UNION NO. 12, PROGRESSIVE MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIST. NO. 1
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 10310.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

May 23, 1951.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1951.


189 F.2d 2

G. William Horsley, R. W. Deffenbaugh, Springfield, Ill., for petitioner.

David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel and Norton J. Come, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, and Alice Andrews, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before KERNER, FINNEGAN, and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.

KERNER, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing an unfair labor practices complaint that had been issued upon charges filed by petitioner against Rawalt Coal Company. The question is whether the Board, as a means of effectuating the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., has discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction because the Coal Company's operations had an insubstantial impact on commerce.

The petitioner in its amended charge alleged that Rawalt Coal Company was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of § 8(a) (1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Act. Based upon this charge, a hearing was had before a trial examiner who issued his intermediate report finding

189 F.2d 3
that the Coal Company, employing 19 men, was engaged, at a small slope near Canton, Illinois, in mining and selling coal. The mine was not located on a railroad, and shipments therefrom were made by truck. During the period from September 1948 to August 1949, the Coal Company produced about 30,000 tons of coal, of which 9,000 tons were sold to the Illinois Coal and Dock Company which, in turn, sold 2,500 tons of the coal to an interstate common carrier, and the remainder to certain industrial domestic consumers. The examiner found that the Coal Company had committed unfair labor practices in violation of § 8(a) (1), (3) and (4) of the Act, and recommended, inter alia, that 11 of the Coal Company's employees be reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and made whole for any loss of pay suffered by them

The Board accepted the examiner's findings and found that the dollar value of the coal sold was $35,000. It pointed to the fact that there was no evidence that the Coal Company had made any out-of-State purchases or that any of the coal produced had been shipped outside the State. It concluded that the Coal Company's operations did affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and were subject to the jurisdiction of the Board. It added, however, that, as a matter of policy, it had "since the issuance of the Intermediate Report in this case * * * adopted certain minimum requirements for the assertion of its jurisdiction," and therefore it "becomes necessary for us * * * to examine the commerce facts in order to ascertain whether these minimum requirements have been met."1 And since the coal was sold locally and the value of the sales to interstate firms was less than $50,000, the Board concluded that the impact on commerce was not substantial enough to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

Although petitioner concedes, as it must, that whether the activities of a business affect commerce within the meaning of the Act depends solely upon the facts and circumstances of each case,2 yet it contends that Congress intended the Act to apply to all business which affects interstate commerce, and since the business of the Coal Company did affect commerce, the Board was without authority to dismiss the complaint.

A somewhat similar contention was made in Haleston Drug Stores v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 418. In that case petitioners also contended that since the Board found that petitioners' operations were subject to the Act, the Board lacked authority, as a matter of policy, to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that the impact on commerce was not significant. The court rejected this contention and held that the Board, as a matter of policy, had the power to dismiss the proceeding because the impact on commerce was not substantial enough to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction.

In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1957
    ...Relations Board, 5 Cir., 227 F.2d 687; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1; Haleston Drug Stores v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 418. See National Labor Relations Board v. Indiana & Michigan El......
  • Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., No. 13894.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 30, 1954
    ...9 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 243, 247; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 1, 4, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 7 See also Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 194......
  • NLRB v. Pease Oil Company, No. 164
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 26, 1960
    ...may be overturned by a court only when that discretion has been abused. Local Union No. 12, P. M. W. A. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 1, 4, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 653; Haleston Drug Stores v. N. L. R. B., 9 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 418; cf. N. L. R. B. v......
  • Irving Subway Grating Co. v. Silverman, Civ. No. 13877.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 22, 1953
    ...or afford complete relief. 29 U.S.C.A. § 156; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1. Paragraph twenty-fifth of the complaint in the subject action alleges that the National Labor Relations Board informed the plaintiff that it shou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1957
    ...Relations Board, 5 Cir., 227 F.2d 687; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1; Haleston Drug Stores v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 418. See National Labor Relations Board v. Indiana & Michigan El......
  • Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., No. 13894.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 30, 1954
    ...9 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 243, 247; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 1, 4, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 7 See also Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 194......
  • NLRB v. Pease Oil Company, No. 164
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 26, 1960
    ...may be overturned by a court only when that discretion has been abused. Local Union No. 12, P. M. W. A. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 1, 4, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 653; Haleston Drug Stores v. N. L. R. B., 9 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 418; cf. N. L. R. B. v......
  • Irving Subway Grating Co. v. Silverman, Civ. No. 13877.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 22, 1953
    ...or afford complete relief. 29 U.S.C.A. § 156; Local Union No. 12, Progressive Mine Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1. Paragraph twenty-fifth of the complaint in the subject action alleges that the National Labor Relations Board informed the plaintiff that it shou......
  • 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