Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. NLRB, 20655.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit , and THOMPSON |
| Citation | 370 F.2d 205 |
| Parties | RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 770, Affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Los Angeles Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor. |
| Docket Number | No. 20655.,20655. |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1966 |
370 F.2d 205 (1966)
RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 770, Affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
Los Angeles Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.
No. 20655.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
December 19, 1966.
Kenneth M. Schwartz, Robert M. Dohrmann, of Arnold, Smith & Schwartz, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., William J. Avrutis, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Ralph Kennedy, Director, N.L.R.B., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent, N.L.R.B.
George E. Bodle, Daniel Fogel, Stephen Reinhardt, Loren R. Rothschild, of Bodle & Fogel, Los Angeles, Cal., for intervenor, L. A. Joint Exec. Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO.
Before BARNES and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
THOMPSON, District Judge:
This is a petition for review of a decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board (156 NLRB No. 6) dismissing
The consolidated complaint charged that the employers, Boy's Markets, Inc. and Von's Grocery Company, and their bargaining representative, Food Employers Council, Inc., had engaged in unfair labor practices by rendering unlawful assistance and support to the Joint Board in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act, by interfering and restraining employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and by discriminating to discourage membership in the Retail Clerks and encourage membership in the Joint Board in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
Petitioner does not attack the findings of fact upon which the Board based its decision. The Specifications of Error,1 although phrased in part in terms of an attack on factual findings, are in substance protests against the conclusions drawn by the Board from the facts established by the evidence. We, therefore, adopt the facts as found by the Board in its Decision and Order, as follows:
"The Respondents, The Boy\'s Markets, herein called Boy\'s and Von\'s Grocery Co., herein called Von\'s, are Los Angeles area retail grocery chains, members of the Respondent, Food Employers\' Council, herein called the Council, which on behalf of its members had, at all times material herein, a contract with the Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, Retail Clerks International Association, herein called Clerks. This contract ran from January 1, 1959, through March 31, 1964, and covered all retail clerks engaged in `retail food, bakery, candy and general merchandise\' operations. At the time of the execution of this contract, the members of the Council did not have snackbars and thus did not employ any snackbar employees. However, sometime in 1962, when the Clerks noticed snackbars in supermarkets in the Los Angeles area, the Clerks requested the Council to include in forthcoming negotiations for a new multiemployer contract the establishment of wage classifications for all the then unrepresented snackbar employees of its members, and the Council agreed. As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner\'s Decision, the negotiations for a new multiemployer contract began in January 1963, and culminated in a new agreement on March 14, 1964.
"On February 1, 1964, while the Council and the Clerks were thus engaged, inter alia, in negotiating wage rates for the unrepresented snackbar employees on a multiemployer basis, the Joint Board,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., AFL-CI
...of Section 2(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) 7, the issue was a Page 827 debatable one. Cf. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir.1966) (purpose of Act is to protect workers, not labor unions, citing Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157); 1992-93 Annual Surve......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., AFL-CI
...within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) 7, the issue was a debatable one. Cf. Retail Clerks Union v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir.1966) (purpose of Act is to protect workers, not labor unions, citing Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157); 1992-93 Annual Survey......
-
Local No. 3-193 Intern. Woodworkers of America v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 77-3057
...them through the fait accompli of accretion. We frown upon the 'successful coup' technique. Cf. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. Id. at 505, n. 1. Later the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had before it Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local 455 v. N.L.R.B......
-
Meijer, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., s. 76-1103
...399 F.2d 365, 369-70 (8th Cir. 1968). The rights which are at issue here are those of the employees. See Retail Clerks Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. Enforcement of the Board's order is granted. WEICK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The action by the Board in splitting off the b......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., AFL-CI
...of Section 2(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) 7, the issue was a Page 827 debatable one. Cf. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir.1966) (purpose of Act is to protect workers, not labor unions, citing Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157); 1992-93 Annual Surve......
-
N.L.R.B. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., AFL-CI
...within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(3) 7, the issue was a debatable one. Cf. Retail Clerks Union v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir.1966) (purpose of Act is to protect workers, not labor unions, citing Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157); 1992-93 Annual Survey......
-
Local No. 3-193 Intern. Woodworkers of America v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 77-3057
...them through the fait accompli of accretion. We frown upon the 'successful coup' technique. Cf. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. Id. at 505, n. 1. Later the District of Columbia Court of Appeals had before it Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, Local 455 v. N.L.R.B......
-
Meijer, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., s. 76-1103
...399 F.2d 365, 369-70 (8th Cir. 1968). The rights which are at issue here are those of the employees. See Retail Clerks Local 770 v. NLRB, 370 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. Enforcement of the Board's order is granted. WEICK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The action by the Board in splitting off the b......