07.02.2015 Views

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

1 - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!