1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
166 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />
been violated. Such being the basis for their disposition, the<br />
precedence value of the case is limited primarily to a factual<br />
rather than a legal nature. The decisions are not res judicata<br />
and do not foreclose the subsequent proceedings on the merits<br />
before the <strong>Board</strong>.<br />
Three of the cases decided during the year, however, are noteworthy.<br />
In the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner case, 16 the Ninth<br />
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the District<br />
Court 17 in granting a temporary injunction under 10(1) against<br />
a group of unions representing the employees of a newspaper<br />
publisher, based upon a finding of reasonable cause to believe<br />
that they violated the secondary boycott provisions of the Act<br />
by picketing neutral employers. The employers whose premises<br />
had been picketed included the Examiner, another newspaper<br />
owned by the primary's parent corporation, an independent<br />
newspaper with whom the Examiner jointly published a Sunday<br />
edition, and an independently owned company which did the<br />
printing for the Examiner and the independent. The court affirmed<br />
findings that the primary employer Herald-Examiner was<br />
an independent division of the parent corporation operated as a<br />
separate autonomous enterprise, with independent operations<br />
and labor relations policies and practices which were not controlled<br />
by the parent corporation, so that in these respects it<br />
was independent of the Examiner, and in no wise related to the<br />
independent newspaper and the printing company. The fact that<br />
the Herald-Examiner and the Examiner were both under common<br />
ownership by their parent was not, in the court's view,<br />
such a relationship as to permit picketing of the Examiner and<br />
its business associates in furtherance of a dispute with the<br />
Herald-Examiner, since the two newspapers in fact operated independently<br />
without common control. The court also held that<br />
the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to<br />
permit extensive discovery which would have led to a full inquiry<br />
on the merits of the controversy, or in refusing to permit<br />
oral testimony on disputed facts, since the unions did present<br />
many affidavits to support their position, the court heard oral<br />
argument on the controversy, and the unions were given sufficient<br />
opportunity to present their case without oral testimony.<br />
In another case 18 involving union secondary boycott activity,<br />
" San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild (Los Angeles Herald-Examiner) v. Kennedy, 412<br />
F.2d 541 (C.A. 9).<br />
"Kennedy v. San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild (Los Angeles Herald-Examiner), 69<br />
LRRM 2301 (D.C.Calif.)•<br />
"Penello v American Fed. of Television & Radio Artists, 291 F.Supp. 409 (D.C.Md.).