Summary
In N.L.R.B. v. Hazen, 9 Cir., 203 F.2d 807, the employers charged with violations were engaged in the same character of business as here and were rendering the same sort of services, although on a smaller scale.
Summary of this case from Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pierce BrosOpinion
No. 13349.
April 28, 1953.
George J. Bott, General Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate General Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. General Counsel, Arnold Ordman and Robert G. Johnson, Attorneys, NLRB, Washington, D.C., Thomas P. Graham, Jr., Director, NLRB, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Hennessey Curran and Harry E. Hennessey, Spokane, Wash., Clark Robinson, Cincinnati, Ohio, Bassett Geisness and George H. Davies, Seattle, Wash., for respondents.
Before HEALY, BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges.
The facts in this case are reported in 95 N.L.R.B. 1034. Two questions are presented: first, whether the respondents' business was sufficiently interstate to give the Board jurisdiction, and second, whether there was proof of the alleged unfair labor practices. We are of the opinion that the showing as to the interstate character of the business was sufficient to avoid the de minimis rule. As for the alleged unfair labor practices, we think that the threats that if the employees were organized sundry miscellaneous benefits would no longer be furnished and that vacations would be withheld evidence violation of § 8(a)(1). The record also shows a threat of discharge. Respondents assert that there was no violation of § 8(a)(3) in that the employees in question quit of their own accord and were not discharged. This issue relates to a question of fact which was for the Board and we cannot disturb its finding.
Order enforced.