National Labor Relations Board v. ELVINE K. MILLS, 14.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 14.,14. |
| Citation | 138 F.2d 633 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. ELVINE KNITTING MILLS, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James C. Paradise, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of New York City (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David Findling, Robert Todd McKinlay, Maurice R. Kraines, and Millard Cass, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Herbert Kaufman, of New York City, for respondent.
Irving Sweet, of New York City (Sweet & Sweet and Samuel Sweet, all of New York City, on the brief), for Elvine Employees Association, intervenor.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The Board's order against respondent herein was based upon findings that respondent dominated and interfered with the administration of an employees' association and contributed financial and other support to it and thereby, and by expressing opposition to a local union affiliated with a national organization, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of § 8(2) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (2 and 1), respectively. Since we find there was substantial evidence to support these findings, the Board's rehearsal of the testimony, as set forth in its decision, 43 N. L.R.B. 695, need not be reiterated here. There was evidence that supervisory employees of respondent (shown to be such by, among other things, the testimony of respondent's president) interfered with the operation of the employees' association, that the president gave substantial financial support to it, and that it generally was ineffective and dominated by respondent's point of view; further that the president in an address to the employees, after receiving the union's request for recognition, made a speech to all the employees which was coercive, and that the activities of the supervisory employees were of the same nature. Under the circumstances opposition to the enforcement petition was not justified.
In a supplemental brief respondent asserted that the Board's petition was barred by reason of a statute passed after the petition was filed in this court. Labor-Federal Security Appropriation Act, 1944, Act of July 12, 1943, c. 221, Public No. 135, Tit. IV, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 57 Stat. 515, providing: "No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used in any way in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Baltimore T. Co.
...now, as we thought then, that the contention is so lacking in merit as not to warrant discussion. See, however, N. L. R. B. v. Elvine Knitting Mills, Inc., 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 633, decided Oct. 26, 1943. It is manifest that a limitation upon spending by the Board may not be construed as a limi......
-
SH Camp & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
...and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without complaint being filed." National Labor Relations Board v. Elvine Knitting Mills, 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 633, 634. In National Labor Relations Board v. National Tool Co., 6 Cir., 139 F.2d 490, this court said: "It is not the ......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 10383.
...of the Appropriation Act, as was the case of the instant proceeding, should fall within the terms of the rider. N.L.R.B. v. Elvine Knitting Mills, Inc., 2 Cir., 138 F.2d 633, 634. It is urged that the Board abused its power in failing to dismiss the complaint against respondent under the do......
-
Walling v. Miller, 12574.
... ... S. Dept. of Labor, ... MILLER et al ... No. 12574 ... Circuit ... ...