U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1968

National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union No. 899, Afl-Cio

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 18, 1968 · Browning, Duniway, Carter

404 F.2d 855; 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2220; 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4448 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., Michael N. Sohn, Washington, D. C., (argued) and Thomas Silfen, Washington, D. C., Paul A. Cas-sady, Director, NLRB, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner., Charles M. Arak, (argued), Robert M. Dohrmann, (argued) of Arnold, Smith & Schwartz, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent., Ted R. Frame, (argued), of Frame & Courtney, Coalinga, Cal., for intervenor, State-Mart, Inc.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

General Service Employees Union Local No. 73, Affiliated With Service Employees International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Hendrix ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Construction Laborers International Union, Construction Laborers Local 1140 (United States District Court, Nebraska 1976)
National Labor Relations Board v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, Afl-Cio (9th Cir. 1971)

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:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order entered on July 23, 1967. The decision and order of the Board are reported at 166 N.L.R.B. No. 92. The trial examiner found that respondent union had violated section 8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (7) (C), by picketing stores of an unorganized employer for more than 30 days, without filing an election petition and with a proscribed recognitional objective. The Board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the examiner. We are persuaded that those findings and conclusions are correct.

The order will be enforced.

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