California Ass'n of Employers v. Building and Construction Trades Council of Reno, Nev. And Vicinity

178 F.2d 175 CALIFORNIA ASS'N OF EMPLOYERS v. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF RENO, NEV. AND VICINITY, et al. No. 12150. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 28, 1949. 1 Brown & Wells and Theodore Haugh, Reno, Nev., for appellant. 2 Moreley Griswold, George L. Vargas, Leslie E. Riggins, Reno, Nevada, P. H. McCarthy, Jr., San Francisco, cal., for appellees, Bldg. & Const. Trade Council, et al. 3 David P. Findling, Asso. Gen. Coun., A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel; Mozart G. Ratner and Norton J. Come, Attorneys, NLRB., Washington, D.C., Louis S. Penfield, Chief Legal Officer, NLRB., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee, NLRB. 4 Before POPE, Circuit Judge, and LING and BLACK, District Judges. 5 LING, District Judge. 6 This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissing the complaint brought by California Association of Employers 1 for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against Building and Construction Trades Council of Reno, Nevada, and vicinity. 2 The Association and the Trades Council had entered into a master industry collective bargaining agreement effective to and including…

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissing the complaint brought by California Association of Employers 1 for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against Building and Construction Trades Council of Reno, Nevada, and vicinity. 2 The Association and the Trades Council had entered into a master industry collective bargaining agreement effective to and including May 21, 1948. The contract contained a closed shop (“union referral slip”) clause, provisions for extension, and provisions for ratification by constituent members. Only five individual labor organizations had formally ratified. The complaint, after setting out the contract, alleged that on and after March 15, 1948, the Association negotiated with the Trades Council concerning those provisions affected by the Labor Manage *177 ment Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 136 , 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. The Trades Council took the position that the building industry was not covered by the Act and insisted on the retention of the closed shop provisions as a condition to bargaining. Negotiations thereupon ceased. It was further alleged that the firms represented…

I concur as to the result.