Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, 3189

Citation89 F.2d 1000
Decision Date13 May 1936
Docket NumberNo. 3189,3190.,3189
PartiesMYERS et al. v. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, Limited. SAME v. MacKENZIE et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

Charles Fahy and Robert B. Watts, both of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants have moved for leave to file a petition for rehearing and urge that our decision in these cases is in conflict with that of the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 57 S.Ct. 615, 623, 81 L. Ed. ___ (decided April 12, 1937), and allied cases. In the opinion in the Jones & Laughlin Case it is said: "The various parts of respondent's enterprise are described as interdependent and as thus involving `a great movement of iron ore, coal and limestone along well-defined paths to the steel mills, thence through them, and thence in the form of steel products into the consuming centers of the country — a definite and well-understood course of business.' * * * Although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control. * * * The question is necessarily one of degree. * * * It is thus apparent that the fact that the employees here concerned were engaged in production is not determinative. The question remains as to the effect upon interstate commerce of the labor practice involved. * * * In view of respondent's far-flung activities, it is idle to say that the effect would be indirect or remote." Hughes, C. J., National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation.

In the present case the District Judge found that "The plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, owning and operating a shipbuilding plant at Quincy, Massachusetts, known as the Fore River Plant. This plant and its equipment is fully described in the bill. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of designing and building vessels of various kinds under specific contracts and employs approximately 5,000 employees. It fabricates substantially all materials used in the building of vessels, and for the most part builds boilers and main propelling machinery for each vessel. The vessels are delivered at the Fore River Plant. The cost of materials...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. National LR Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 8, 1940
    ...v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 4 Cir., 109 F.2d 128. All that was necessarily decided by this court in Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 1 Cir., 89 F.2d 1000, was that considering the doubt as to the Board's jurisdiction, on the record then before the court, the district cour......
  • Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation Same v. Kenzie
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1938
  • Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co v. Schauffler
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1938
    ...the administrative remedy there provided.' 91 F.2d 730, 731. We granted certiorari because of conflict with Myers et al. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 1 Cir., 89 F.2d 1000, in which the facts are substantially similar and the issues the same. That case is reversed by our opinion delivere......
  • Thomas v. Spruks
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 6, 1937
    ... ... Manufacturers' Finance Acceptance Corporation v. Jordan Distributors, Inc., 111 Pa.Super. 448, 170 A ... ...

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