Malone v. United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO

Citation432 F.2d 554
Decision Date13 October 1970
Docket NumberNo. 15074.,15074.
PartiesH. Frank MALONE, Acting Regional Director of the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on Behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellee. v. UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.

Marvin Roth, Atty., N. L. R. B., for appellee.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A secondary boycott directed at Georgetown Steel Corporation was charged to United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO and investigated by the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint alleged that the union during August 1970 was picketing at the entrance to a public pier in Georgetown, South Carolina, from which the company's steel is shipped, announcing that the corporation's employees had struck.

The Board determined that it reasonably appeared that an unfair labor practice — a violation of section 8(b) (4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(b) (4) — had been committed by the union in maintaining the picket line.

On August 29, 1970 the Federal District Court for South Carolina, on the petition of the Board, issued an injunction forbidding the maintenance of the picketing until the Board should finally adjudicate the dispute, section 10(l), 29 U.S.C. 160(l). Without success, application was made by the union to the District Court and thereafter to the Chief Judge of this court to stay the injunction. This appeal followed.

Critical to this controversy is the soundness of the Board's finding that there was "reasonable cause to believe that such charge is true". The issue for the courts' decision is not the union's guilt or innocence of a transgression of the Act. The inquiry is not so definitive. When the finding has been made by the District Court — as it was here — that "reasonable cause" is present, an injunction may be issued.

A review of the record is convincing that the evidence supports the trial judge's finding. Certainly, it was not "clearly erroneous", F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), nor was there abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Union Pacific R. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Army Corps of Engin., 08-7102.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • January 5, 2010
    ......v. . UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ......
  • Squillacote on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Graphic Arts Intern. Union (Gaiu) Local 277, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 17, 1975
    ...to the suit. . . .4 Most circuits deal with district court findings of reasonable cause as a question of fact. Malone v. United Steel Workers, 432 F.2d 554 (4th Cir. 1970); Local Joint Board v. Sperry, 323 F.2d 75 (8th Cir. 1963); Warehousemen's Local 6 v. Hoffman, 302 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 19......
  • Putnam Mills Corporation v. United States, 357-70.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • June 20, 1973
    ......1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947); Housing Corp. of America v. United States, 468 F.2d 922, 199 Ct.Cl. 705 (1972). In ......
  • Sachs v. LOCAL U. NO. 48, UNITED ASS'N OF J. & A. OF PLUMB., ETC.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 26, 1972
    ...was limited to whether the Board had reasonable cause to believe that the unions were violating the Act. Malone v. United Steel Workers of America, 432 F.2d 554 (4th Cir. 1970). We, too, must refrain from deciding the case on the merits. We hold no more than that the Board's complaint, the ......

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