U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1959

National Labor Relations Board v. Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, and Local No. 4372, Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided May 14, 1959 · Simons, Allen, Choate

266 F.2d 823; 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2092; 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4841 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D. C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Fannie M. Boyls, Attorney N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioner., J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr., of Adair & Goldthwaite, Atlanta, Ga. (Kane & Koons, Charles V. Koons, Washington, D. C., on brief), for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local No. 81, Afl-Cio (9th Cir. 1990)
National Labor Relations Board v. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, Afl-Cio (6th Cir. 1961)
Communications Workers v. National Labor Relations Board (Supreme Court of the United States 1960)
National Labor Relations Board v. Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, and Local No. 4372, Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio (6th Cir. 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act as Amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. for enforcement of its order against respondents dated May 1, 1958.

An examination of the record in this case, and the consideration of the briefs and the oral argument convinces us that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 158, and that the Board’s procedure was valid and proper.

Respondents complain that paragraph 1 of the Board’s order directing respondents to “Cease and desist from in any manner restraining or coercing employees of Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act” is too broad. We agree only as respects the use of the words “in any manner” which are, in our opinion, vague and subject to misinterpretation, and therefore we order that these words be stricken from said paragraph 1.

*824 We direct that a decree should issue enforcing the Board’s order against the respondents, after the aforementioned words “in any manner” are stricken from paragraph 1 thereof.

Accordingly, a decree in the usual form may be submitted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.