Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. v. Herrick

Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. v. Herrick, 85 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1936)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1936-07-13
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant is a carpet manufacturer with its sole manufacturing plant in Yonkers, N. Y., to which raw materials are shipped from outside New York State and from which appellant ships some finished products to customers outside New York State. The prayer in this suit is that appellees be enjoined from enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) against the plaintiff, and from the further prosecution of, or the holding of hearings on, a complaint charging plaintiff with engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within section 8 (1-3) of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (1-3) by discharging employees for union activity and by coercing employees in their selection of representatives for collective bargaining. Some of the employees are on strike.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. v. Herrick. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
ALEXANDER SMITH SONS CARPET CO. v. HERRICK,85 F.2d 16(2nd Cir. 1936)
ALEXANDER SMITH SONS CARPET CO. v. HERRICK et al.
No. 454.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 13, 1936.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Suit by the Alexander Smith Sons Carpet Company against Elinore Morehouse Herrick and others, to enjoin defendants from further prosecution of a complaint issued by the National Labor Relations Board against the plaintiff under the National Labor Relations Act (July 5, 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.). From a decree of the District Court for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Burlingame, Nourse Pettit, of New York City, and William J. Wallin, of Yonkers, N.Y. (Arthur E. Pettit, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, both of Washington, D.C., and Robert S. Erdahl, for appellees.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant is a carpet manufacturer with its sole manufacturing plant in Yonkers, N.Y., to which raw materials are shipped from outside New York State and from which appellant ships some finished products to customers outside New York State. The prayer in this suit is that appellees be enjoined from enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) against the plaintiff, and from the further prosecution of, or the holding of hearings on, a complaint charging plaintiff with engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within section 8 (1-3) of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (1-3) by discharging employees for union activity and by coercing employees in their selection of representatives for collective bargaining. Some of the employees are on strike. For the reasons stated in E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co. v. Boland (C.C.A.)85 F.2d 12, decided this day, the appellant has not shown that any irreparable injury will be suffered if this injunction is denied, and under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, it has an adequate, complete, and exclusive remedy at law on a petition to the proper court for a subpœna, or for the enforcement or review of any order the board may enter.

Decree affirmed.Page 17