TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Sexton

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sexton, 203 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1953)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 16, 1953
Docket
No. 11816
Judges
Allen, Martin, McALLISTER, Per Curiam
Citations
203 F.2d 94032 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 21051953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3787

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The above cause came on to be heard upon the record, the briefs of the parties, and the argument of counsel.

The Board found that respondent refused to bargain collectively with the certified bargaining representative in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (1, 5). Only one of respondent’s reasons for refusal to bargain admits of validity. It appears that the Board excluded Henry Sexton, respondent’s nephew, from the bargaining unit in question and from participation in the election for the selection of a bargaining agent. The Board acted in accordance with what it considered its proper authority under Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159 , to exclude from the appropriate unit those employees who do not have a sufficient interest in common with other employees to warrant their inclusion therein, and the above exclusion was based upon the said employee’s family relationship to the respondent. Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152 (3), sets forth what the term “employee” shall include, and specifically excludes a spouse or child of an individual employer as such an employee, but provides for no other exclusion on the basis of family relationship. The Act, therefore, having expressly set forth the individuals who are excluded from the term “employee” on the basis of family relationship, we find no justification for the exercise of discretion on the part of the Board, by virtue of Section 9 of the Act, to exclude from the appropriate bargaining unit and from participation in the election for the selection of a bargaining agent any persons on the basis of family relationship other than those specifically excluded under Section 2(3).

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of the Board be denied enforcement for the reason that the Board improperly excluded Henry Sexton, respondent’s nephew, because of his family relationship to respondent, from the appropriate bargaining unit in question and from participation in the election for the selection of a bargaining agent; and the petition for enforcement of the order of the Board is, accordingly, denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 11966: 11970: 11972: 11974: 11979: 11983: 21985: 119652026peak 1983 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list