U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1966

Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48, Afl-Cio, Its Affiliated Local Unions and Its Agents v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 13, 1966 · Miller, Fahy, Tamm

361 F.2d 70 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Herbert Ansell, Los Angeles, Cal., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for petitioners. Messrs. Herbert S. Thatcher and .David S. Barr, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for petitioners., Mr. Gary Green, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

National Labor Relations Board v. Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No. 1621, A/w International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades (9th Cir. 1980)

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 Union petitioner requests the court to set aside, and the Board by cross-petition requests the court to enforce, a Board Order based on findings that the Union had violated the “secondary boycott provisions of the Labor Act, Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B). We have considered the Union’s Contentions, largely based on its view of Local 761, etc., Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, 366 U.S. 667, 81 S.Ct. 1285, 6 L.Ed.2d 592, that “the ‘reserve gate’ doctrine is limited to the particular facts of that case, and cannot be applied to invalidate picketing at a common construction site.” We conclude, however, that the record considered as a whole gives substantial evidentiary support to the findings of the Board that the Union engaged in conduct prohibited by the provisions of the Act above referred to, and that the case cited'is no bar to the Order based on the findings.

The petition of the Union accordingly is denied, and the Order of the Board will be enforced.

It is so ordered.

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