Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48, Afl-cio,its Affiliated Local Unions and Its Agents, Petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 361 F.2d 70
Argued April 19, 1966.Decided April 29, 1966, Petition for Rehearing Denied June 13, 1966
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.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAHY and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
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.