TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Texaco, Inc. v. Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Union, Local Union No. 685, Aflcio

TEXACO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION NO. 685, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellant

Texaco, Inc. v. Operative Plasterers & Cement Masons Int'l Union, Local Union No. 685, Aflcio, 472 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1973)
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
January 15, 1973
Docket
No. 72-2890
Judges
Brown, Coleman, Morgan
Citations
472 F.2d 59482 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 23841973 U.S. App. LEXIS 12168

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This case raises again before this circuit the question of whether the determination by the National Labor Relations Board that a union had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act is res judicata in a subsequent suit for damages under Section 303 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. In this case the NLRB held that the appellant union violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) by engaging in certain unprotected secondary activity affecting appellee Texaco. The District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, 343 F.Supp. 267 , held this NLRB decision res judicata on the issue of liability and conducted a trial only on the question of damages. Texaco was awarded damages in excess of $24,000.00, and the union now appeals. We affirm.

We note that the NLRB finding of illegal secondary activity in this case was challenged by the union in an enforcement proceeding before this court and that we granted enforcement of the order. National Labor Relations Board v. Lafayette Building & Construction Trades Council, 5 Cir. 1971, 445 F.2d 495 .

While the result of applying res judi-cata in this case may seem harsh, especially since there are some definite differences between Board and court proceedings, we feel that affirmance is compelled by the existing case law in this circuit. Painters v. Edgewood Contracting Co., 5 Cir. 1969, 416 F.2d 1081 ;

*595 H. L. Robertson & Associates, Inc. v. Plumbers Local 519, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 520 . We feel that these two cases are in point on the issue raised in this case and therefore the opinion of the district court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 11975: 21976: 21978: 21979: 21980: 11981: 21982: 21983: 11984: 31986: 12004: 119732026peak 1984 · 3

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
Painters Dist. Council No. 38, Bhd. of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Edgewood Contracting Co., 416 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1969) 65
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lafayette Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, Afl-Cio, 445 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1971) 13
Texaco, Inc. v. Operative Plasterers Int'l Union, Local Union No. 685, 343 F. Supp. 267 (W.D. La. 1972) 2

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