TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. Cleff

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CLEFF Et Al.

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cleff, 214 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 15, 1954
Docket
No. 14104
Judges
Stephens, Orr, Fee
Citations
214 F.2d 134 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 23141954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3807

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Although the respondents are in default since no papers have been filed by them in this Court and the General Counsel has moved for summary enforcement, we have carefully examined the record.

The Trial Examiner and the Board agreed in this case upon the findings of fact and the credibility to be given to the witnesses. The evidence was clear and substantial in support of the essential findings. The jurisdictional facts were clearly established. There was no designated collective bargaining agency, and the shop was not union organized at the time of the event. It was clearly shown that Cleff, one of the respondents, discharged one Ullo for raffling off a doll on the express grounds that it was a union organizational device. This was a violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.

1

It was proved that Cleff ordered a forelady to “watch out” for union members, and thus sought to identify such members in its employ with the purpose of preventing the union from organizing the shop. Although the orders were not carried out, the fore-lady communicated the instructions to the employees. This interrogation and surveillance for the unlawful purpose of preventing organization were threats of reprisal against union members and potential union organizers, and were interdicted by Section 8(a) (1) of the statute. The order is therefore well founded and should be enforced.

*2 This Court will not examine the question of whether the methods and devices selected by the Board as adequate to cure the situation are in fact necessary.

The order will be enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (3) and (1).

How later courts describe this case

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

1954: 11956: 11957: 119542026peak 1954 · 1

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