From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacific Electricord v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 26, 1966
361 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1966)

Opinion

No. 20276.

April 26, 1966.

Sweeney, Irwin, Cozy Foye, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.

Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Martin R. Ganzglass, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.


Upon an examination of the whole record we conclude that there was substantial evidence from which the Board could infer that the activities leading to the employee's discharge were engaged in with or on behalf of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the discharged employee himself, and thus were "concerted activities for the purpose of * * mutual aid or protection" within the meaning of section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, protected by section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The order of the Board will be enforced.


Summaries of

Pacific Electricord v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 26, 1966
361 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1966)
Case details for

Pacific Electricord v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Case Details

Full title:PACIFIC ELECTRICORD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 26, 1966

Citations

361 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 1966)

Citing Cases

Prill v. N.L.R.B

Furthermore, the Pacific Electricord test, which had been relied upon by the Ninth Circuit in rejecting the…

Top of Waikiki, Inc. v. N.L.R.B

We conclude that there is substantial evidence from which the Board could infer that the activities of the…