United Employees Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Bd.

Decision Date28 April 1938
Docket NumberNo. 6656.,6656.
Citation96 F.2d 875
PartiesUNITED EMPLOYEES ASS'N v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Charles L. McCormick and R. L. McDonald, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner.

Charles Fahy, General Counsel, Robert Watts, Associate General Counsel, and Malcolm F. Halliday, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

DAVIS, Circuit Judge.

On June 16, 1937, the United Electrical & Radio Workers of America, Railway Equipment Workers Local No. 610, hereinafter called the Union, filed a petition for investigation and certification, under section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c), of the United Employees Association, hereinafter called the Association, an unincorporated labor organization in the plant at Wilmerding, Pa., of the Westinghouse Airbrake Company, hereinafter called the Company. A hearing was held on September 9, 1937, and at the hearing, the Association was permitted to intervene.

As a part of the investigation an election was held on November 9, 1937, under the direction of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, and on December 4, 1937, the Board certified to the Company that:

"* * * United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Railway Equipment Workers Local No. 610 has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Westinghouse Airbrake Company at its Wilmerding, Pennsylvania, plant, except superintendents, foreman, assistant foreman, group leaders, working group leaders, inspectors, clerical employees and all employees in the engineering and drafting departments, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, Railway Equipment Workers Local No. 610 is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment."

The case is here on petition of five persons in their representative capacity as officers of the Association and as individuals, praying that a review of the proceedings before the Board be allowed, that the decision and certification of the Board be set aside, that an election be ordered fixing a proper date of employment as a requisite for the eligibility of voters and the classification of employees to constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, that the Board be ordered to certify and file in this court a transcript of the record before it, and that the allowance of the review act as a stay of further proceedings before the Board until the questions to be raised in the review are determined.

The Board appeared specially and urged us to dismiss the petition on the ground that at this stage of the proceedings, this court has no jurisdiction.

The petitioner admits that it may not have a judicial review of any action of the Board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • WILSON EMPLOYEES'REPRESENTATION PLAN v. Wilson & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • November 24, 1943
    ...306, 84 L.Ed. 354; National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corp., 308 U.S. 453, 60 S.Ct. 307, 84 L.Ed. 396; United Employees Ass'n v. National L. R. Bd., 3 Cir., 96 F.2d 875; Klein v. Herrick, D.C., 41 F.Supp. 417; A. F. of L. v. Madden, D.C., 33 F.Supp. 943, and Oberman & Co. v. United Garm......
  • UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WKRS. v. Smiley, Civil Action No. 2755.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • April 21, 1948
    ...Board directing action on the part of the employer. It is then subject to judicial review under Section 10(a). United Employees Assoc. v. N.L. R.B., 3 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 875, 876; A.F. of L. v. N.L.R.B., 1940, 308 U.S. 401, 60 S.Ct. 300, 304, 84 L.Ed. 347; N.L.R.B. v. Botany Worsted Mills,......
  • CUPPLES COMPANY MANUF'RS v. National Labor R. Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 12, 1939
    ...D.C., 103 F.2d 933, opinion filed February 27, 1939; Ames Baldwin Wyoming Co. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 73 F.2d 489; United Employees' Ass'n v. N. L. R. B., 3 Cir., 96 F.2d 875. 2. Section 644, Title 28 U.S.C.A., provides that, "In any case where it is necessary, in order to prevent a failure......
  • National Labor Rel. Board v. West Kentucky Coal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 6, 1945
    ...are preliminary and not adversary in their nature. Thus the certification is held not to be an order. United Employees Assn. v. National Labor Relations Board, 3 Cir., 96 F.2d 875, 876; American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 70 App.D.C. 62, 103 F.2d 933, 936. The ob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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