Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Kingsport Press, Inc. v. Frank W. McCulloch Individually and as Chairman and Members of Andconstituting the National Labor Relations Board
336 F.2d 753
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1964-12-07
- Topic
- bankruptcy
PER CURIAM. Prior to the expiration of certain collective bargaining agreements, five printing trades unions presented economic demands which the appellant deemed unacceptable. Although the contracts expired on January 1, 1963, the parties continued to negotiate until on March 11,. *754 1963 a strike was called. Some eleven months later, four of the striking unions requested the Board to conduct representation elections pursuant to section 9(c) (1) of the Act. Consolidated hearings were concluded on February 25, 1964.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Kingsport Press, Inc. v. Frank W. McCulloch Individually and as Chairman and Members of Andconstituting the National Labor Relations Board. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
KINGSPORT PRESS, INC. v. McCULLOCH,336 F.2d 753(D.C. Cir. 1964)
KINGSPORT PRESS, INC., Appellant, v. Frank W. McCULLOCH et al.,
individually and as Chairman and Members of and constituting the National
Labor Relations Board et al., Appellees.
No. 18609.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 4, 1964.
Decided June 25, 1964.
Certiorari Denied December 7, 1964.
See 85 S.Ct. 330.
Mr. Stephen B. Goldberg, Atty., N.L.R.B., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California,pro hac vice,by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominic L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., were on the brief for appellee McCulloch et al.
Mr. John S. McLellan, Kingsport, Tenn., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,pro hac vice,by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Herbert S. Thatcher and David S. Barr, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee, Local 175, Electrotypers Union and certain other appellees.
Before DANAHER, BURGER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The Board took the position that unless the elections could be held prior to March 11, 1964, by virtue of section 9(c)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended,61 STAT. 136,73 STAT. 519,29 U.S.C. § 151et seq., strikers who had been replaced would have been rendered ineligible to vote. Under that section economic strikers not entitled to reinstatement could participate only in an "election conducted within twelve months after the commencement of the strike." The Board had actedsuasponte,explaining:
"[I]n order to implement to the extent possible the Congressional intent to enfranchise replaced strikers during the first 12 months of an economic strike, we have decided to direct an election to be held no later than March 10, 1964, without awaiting any briefs which parties may file. We believe that this procedure, although a departure from that normally followed, is warranted by the circumstances and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act."
The appellant in the District Court sought to restrain the elections. The Board's motion to dismiss was granted "for the reason that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action." Appellant then sought a stay in this court. Even as we denied the appellant's motion, we ordered expedited consideration of the appeal.
Now after full argument, we have given consideration to the briefs1and the claims earnestly advanced by counsel. We are satisfied that the order of the District Court must be
Affirmed.2
- Appellant has moved that the court strike certain portions of the brief filed by the intervenors. Since we do not reach the merits, we deem it unnecessary to act on that motion. ↩
- Compare Boire v. Greyhound Corp.,376 U.S. 473,84 S.Ct. 894,11 L.Ed.2d 894(1964) with Leedom v. Kyne,358 U.S. 184,79 S.Ct. 180,3 L.Ed.2d 210(1958). ↩