National Labor Relations Board v. Knickerbocker Plastic Company, Inc.

Good Law
218 F.2d 917·35 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2420·1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4465
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 15, 195514029California3,396 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The National Labor Relations Board is-here petitioning for our order ordering-the enforcement of the board’s order against respondent, Knickerbocker. The board found that respondent had discharged two of its employees, Mary Ann Goff and Blanche Rounsavell, because of their testimony at a prior board hearing in violation of § 8(a) (3) (4) and (1) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, cited in complaint as the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, First Session. The Board also found that respondent had refused to bargain with International Association of Machinists, hereinafter referred to as IAM, which represented a majority of its employees, in violation of § 8(a) (5) and (1); discharged a number of employees because they went on strike in protest against the discriminatory discharges and refusal to bargain, in violation of§8(a) (3) and (3); accorded exclusive recognition and bargaining rights to Playthings, Jewelry & Novelty Workers International Union, CIO, and its Local 801, in the face of the IAM’s prior claim for recognition, in violation of § 8(a) (2) and (1); and made a union-security agreement with the Novelty Workers at a time…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.