U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1970

Kellwood Company v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 16, 1970 · Ely, Gray, Hufstedler, Per Curiam

427 F.2d 1170; 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2639; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8689 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Dale Stout (argued), of Kullman, Lang, Keenan, Inman & Bee, New Orleans, La., Richard J. Linton, Labor Relations Atty., St. Louis, Mo., Marvin D. Morgenstein, of Steinhart, Goldberg, Feigenbaum & Dadar, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner., Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Roger L. Sabo, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Attys., Washington, D. C., Woodrow Greene, Reg. Director, N.L.R.B., Alberquerque, N. M-, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision. The 1 that cite it most often are listed here.

Kellwood Co., Ottenheimer Division v. National Labor Relations Board (8th Cir. 1970)

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:

Petitioner-respondent Kellwood Company complains that substantial evidence on the record as a whole does not support the Board’s finding that Kellwood interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, in violation of section 8(a) (1) of the Act nor the Board's further finding that Kellwood first discharged employee Roy Nell Mass, *1171 then refused to rehire her, because of her union activities, in violation of sections 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (1) of the Act. The Board has filed a cross-petition seeking enforcement of its order.

Resolution of the contentions of the parties has required a detailed examination of the record below. We have made that examination, and we have concluded that the Board’s challenged findings are adequately supported by the record.

No useful purpose would be served by reciting each detail of the evidence. The parties are aware of the contents of the record, their counsel know from the colloquy at oral argument that the court was well informed on the subject, and the recitation would be of no value as precedent.

The petition to set aside the Board’s order is denied, and the Board’s order is directed enforced in full.

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