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
Lee A. Consaul Co., Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 469 F.2d 84
Oct. 24, 1972
Harold H. Brown (argued), George C. Lyon, of Haight, Lyon & Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., John B. Wisely, Jr., Yuma, Ariz., Victor J. Van Bourg, of Levy, Deroy, Geffner & Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.
Joseph E. Mayer, Atty. (argued), Stephen J. Solomon, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before BARNES and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Without going into factual detail, we conclude that we must deny the order for enforcement, set aside the two orders and decisions, and remand with instructions to dismiss the proceedings against petitioners.
In June, 1965, petitioners, as employers of melon packers, fired a group of workers who had gone on strike. The Board concluded the strike was a protected concerted activity. We disagree, finding it was a five day wildcat strike, viewed as such by both the employers and the union. We decline to follow NLRB v. R. C. Can Co., 328 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1964), but instead follow NLRB v. Draper Corp., 145 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1944). See: NLRB v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1969), where we cited NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967) and the interplay between Sec. 7 and Sec. 9 (a).
We held the Supreme Court "at least" implied that "by joining a union an employee gives up or waives some of his Sec. 7 rights."
The strike was not a protected concerted activity. No unfair labor practice was proved. In view of this conclusion we need not discuss petitioners' other alleged errors.
Enforcement denied. The Decision and Order of the NLRB dated April 24, 1969, and the Supplemental Decision and Order of NLRB dated August 27, 1971, are each set aside, and the matter remanded for dismissal.