National Labor Relations Board v. JS Popper, Inc., 7381.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7381.,7381. |
| Citation | 113 F.2d 602 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. J. S. POPPER, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Richard C. Barrett, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Charles A. Cohen, of New York City, for respondent.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned this court to enforce an order entered against the respondent requiring it to cease certain alleged unfair labor practices and to reinstate Theodore Veljkovich as an employee to his former or an equivalent position without loss of pay or seniority, and to do certain other things which need not be related here. The respondent admittedly is engaged in manufacturing and its operations have a close and intimate relationship to commerce between the states. If the respondent is guilty of the practices charged its conduct is such as would tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce.
The respondent has raised three points which can be disposed of quickly. It contends, first, that the amended charge filed with the Board was not verified in conformity with the Board's own rule, Section 3 of Article II, in that it was not sworn to before a notary public or an agent of the Board authorized to administer oaths, but was verified before a commissioner in chancery of the State of New Jersey, the attorney for the complaining union. This objection was raised seasonably by the respondent in its answer filed to the amended charge and was passed upon at the beginning of the hearing before the trial examiner who overruled the respondent's motion to dismiss the charge. The respondent points out that Section 3 of Article II of the Board's rules has now been amended to provide that a complaint may be sworn to before any person authorized to administer an oath. In our opinion the purpose of Section 3 was simply to require a charge to be sworn to so that the affiant might be prosecuted for perjury in case he made a wilful misstatement in regard to a material matter. The Board is a quasi-judicial body and as such must be deemed to have the right to construe its own rules, and unless such construction is so arbitrary as to result in the denial of substantial justice an appellate tribunal should not place its own construction upon them. The objection here made by the respondent is purely technical and we will not sustain it.
The respondent also contends that the trial examiner had no authority to hear the testimony. It is difficult to comprehend the nature of this objection for its seems to consist of little more than the fact that an order of the Board specifically designating the trial examiner to conduct the hearings was not introduced in evidence at the beginning of the hearings as is the custom. An order of the Board specifically designating the trial examiner to conduct the hearings is part of the record in this case. No question of jurisdiction can arise on this point.
Objection is also made to the fact that the Board refused to permit the testimony, constituting alleged newly discovered evidence, of one Vladon Krcich to be taken following the conclusion of the hearings. The nature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hathaway Bakeries v. Labor Relations Com'n
...316 Mass. 136 55 N.E.2d 254 HATHAWAY BAKERIES, INC. v. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. Supreme Judicial Court of ... Other local ... unions, belonging to the same national body as does the union ... in question, have closed shop ... capacity, Prusik v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 262 ... Mass. 451; Jaffarian v ... 223; National Labor Relations Board v. J. S ... Popper, Inc. 113 F.2d 602, 603; Thompson Products, Inc. v ... ...
-
Metal Blast, Inc. v. NLRB
...Tyrrell County Lbr. Co., 203 F.2d 951, 952, C.A.4th; N. L. R. B. v. Aluminum Products Co., 120 F.2d 567, 573, C.A.7th; N. L. R. B. v. J. S. Popper, Inc., 113 F.2d 602, 604, C.A. 3rd. See: N. L. R. B. v. Fournier, 182 F.2d 621, 622, C.A.2nd; N. L. R. B. v. Monroe Feed Store, 237 F.2d 116, C.......
-
Keen Transport, Inc. v. United States
...recognizes that said discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. Id. at 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288. See also, National Labor Relations Board v. J. S. Popper, Inc., 113 F.2d 602 (3rd Cir. 1940). The criterion selected by the Commission to evidence a good faith effort, i. e. timely mailing of an ap......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Solien
...See NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763 (8 Cir. 1953); NLRB v. Grace Co., 184 F.2d 126 (8 Cir. 1950) and NLRB v. J. S. Popper, Inc., 113 F.2d 602 (3 Cir. 1940). Cf. Textile Workers Union of America v. NLRB, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 294 F.2d 738 In conclusion, we cannot say that the con......