Volney Felt Mills v. Le Bus, 13873.

Decision Date29 April 1952
Docket NumberNo. 13873.,13873.
Citation196 F.2d 497
PartiesVOLNEY FELT MILLS, Inc. v. LE BUS.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Samuel Lang, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Richard C. Keenan, Chief Law Officer, National Labor Relations Board, New Orleans, La., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, D. P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alleging denial and deprivation of its constitutional rights by the actions and conduct of defendant, in the holding, and the certification of the results, of a representation election, plaintiff, as employer of the electors involved, brought this suit to restrain the defendant from giving effect to the certificate and to set it aside. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. An order was entered granting the motion and dismissing the complaint, and plaintiff has appealed.

Here it recognizes the law to be that, generally speaking, exclusive initial jurisdiction over matters arising under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 141 et seq., is vested, by Congressional enactment, in the National Labor Relations Board, and a district court has no jurisdiction1 to entertain actions based thereon or growing thereout.

Citing Fay v. Douds, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 720 and Worthington Pump & Machinery Corp. v. Douds, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 656, it insists, however, that where, as here, a denial or deprivation of the constitutional rights of an employer is alleged, the rule is different.

We cannot agree. Beginning with this court's decision in the Bradley Lumber Co. case, note 1 supra, the Appellate Courts have adhered without wavering to the rule there laid down.

Of the cases from the Second Circuit relied on by appellant, it is sufficient to say of the Fay case, that it is not in point, and of the Worthington Pump case, that we are not in agreement with the judge's views, as there given.

Appellant is not, as it claims, standing remediless, its constitutional rights invaded and taken away without affording it a judicial hearing. Its day in court2 will come, and soon, if it presses its available remedies. For that day it must, as all others similarly situated must, wait with such fortitude and patience as it can muster.

The judgment dismissing the cause for want of jurisdiction was right. It is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • United States v. Feaster
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 10 June 1969
    ...at least where an employer invokes it." Boire v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, supra, 343 F.2d at 21, fn. 7. See Volney Felt Mills v. Le Bus, 5 Cir. 1952, 196 F.2d 497. The third and most important exception to the exhaustion doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court in Leedom v. Kyne,......
  • Boire v. Miami Herald Publishing Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 28 April 1965
    ...a distinction based upon the relative tenuousness of the union's remedy in Kyne entirely satisfactory. But see Volney Felt Mills v. LeBus (5 Cir. 1952) 196 F.2d 497 (per curiam). Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not make the distinction in McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Ho......
  • Sparks Nugget, Inc. v. Scott
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 8 May 1984
    ...97 F.Supp. 656, 660 (S.D.N.Y. 1951). The Fifth Circuit has indicated that it disagrees with Worthington Pump, see Volney Felt Mills v. LeBus, 196 F.2d 497, 498 (5th Cir. 1952), but its conclusion on that issue is devoid of analysis and we reject it here. 11 Since this Court has jurisdiction......
  • City Cab Company v. Roumell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 20 June 1963
    ...Leedom v. International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers (C.A., Dist.Col., 1960), 107 U.S.App. D.C. 357, 278 F.2d 237; Volney Felt Mills, Inc. v. LeBus (C.A.5, 1952), 196 F.2d 497; Norris v. N. L. R. B. (C.A., Dist.Col., 1949), 85 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 177 F.2d 26; Reeves v. Phillips (N.D., Georgia......
  • 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