Wah Chang Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

(dissenting).

In the fall of 1958, Wah Chang Corporation and Zirconium and Allied Metals Union (Independent) were operating under a collective bargaining agreement, Article XXII of which provided:

During October 1958, the Metal Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, AFL-CIO (Union) conducted an organizing campaign at petitioner’s plant. Among the company employees who participated in this campaign were William L. Stutheit, Ronald E. Graham, Allen W. Wallace and Quinton D. Dombrowsky. On November 3 and 4, 1958, these employees were discharged, each being handed a “Personal Action Blank” which stated that he was discharged for “violation of Article XXII of the Existing Union Agreement.”

The Union filed unfair labor practice charges against the company and a hearing was had before an Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board. The Examiner found and concluded that:

The Examiner recommended that the company be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in these practices, that the discharged employees be reinstated with lost pay, and that the usual notice to employees of intention to comply in the future be posted. The Board adopted the Examiner’s findings, conclusions and…

NATURE OF ACTION

This case came before the Court upon the petition of Wah Chang Corporation, a corporation of the State of New York, doing business in Albany, District of Oregon (Chang), to review and set aside the order of the respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board) affirming its trial examiner’s findings and conclm sions (Examiner), issued on October 14, 1959, which order held that Chang had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of § 8(a) (1), (2) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended (Relations Act), Title 29 U.S. C.A. § 158.

Chang is engaged in interstate commerce, and the alleged unfair labor practices allegedly occurred at its plants in Albany. The Board, in its answer to Chang’s petition, has cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order (Tr. 49).

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction of the proceedings under §§ 10(e) and (f) of the Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 (e, f).

STATEMENT OF CASE

Chang’s operation at Albany consists of four separate plant buildings where it produces reactive and rare metals which include zirconium, hafnium, co~ lumbium and tantalum. These metals are very valuable and extremely hard to produce. Their…

305 F.2d 15 WAH CHANG CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 16652. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 25, 1962. Weatherford & Thompson, and Orval N. Thompson, Albany, Or., for petitioner. Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsels, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Melvin Pollack, Earle W. Putnam, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., and Thomas P. Graham, Jr., Director, National Labor Relations Board, Seattle, Wash., for respondent. 1 Before CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge. 2 EAST, District Judge. NATURE OF ACTION 3 This case came before the Court upon the petition of Wah Chang Corporation, a corporation of the State of New York, doing business in Albany, District of Oregon (Chang), to review and set aside the order of the respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board) affirming its trial examiner's findings and conclusions (Examiner), issued on October 14, 1959, which order held that Chang had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of § 8(a) (1), (2) and (3) of the Labor Management…