TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Labor Relations Board v. American Guild of Variety Artists, Afl-Cio

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN GUILD OF VARIETY ARTISTS, AFL-CIO, Respondent

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Guild of Variety Artists, Afl-Cio, 420 F.2d 311 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 16, 1969
Docket
No. 27220_1
Judges
Wisdom, Coleman, Simpson
Citations
420 F.2d 31173 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 20951969 U.S. App. LEXIS 9684

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 526 , Part I.

This case is before the Court upon the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order issued against the American Guild of Variety Artists, AFL-CIO [ 163 NLRB 457 ; 155 NLRB 1020 ].

The Board found that the Union executed, maintained, and gave effect to closed shop agreements, requiring union membership as a condition of employment in violation of § 8(b) (2) and (b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act.

Neither the jurisdiction of the Board nor'the validity of the Board order are challenged. The Respondent instead contends that “[B]y the time the Board’s brief was filed in this Court, the Union had fully complied with the order of the Board”. Although expressing awareness that full compliance with a Board order is no defense to enforcement and that orders have been held to have a preventative as well as a remedial function, Respondent submits that in view of compliance we should deny enforcement.

We commend Respondent for its attitude. Nevertheless, under the teachings of N. L. R. B. v. Mexia Textile Mills, 339 U.S. 563 , 70 S.Ct. 833 , 94 L.Ed. 1067 (1950) and N. L. R. B. v. Patterson-Menhaden Corp., 5 Cir., 1968, 389 F.2d 701 , 703, we are of the opinion that the order of the Board should be enforced.

Enforced.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1971: 11979: 119712026peak 1971 · 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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U.S. 563 (1950) 161
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
Huth v. Southern Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969) 281

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