From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee A. Consaul Co. v. Nat. Labor Relations Bd.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 24, 1972
469 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-2520.

October 24, 1972.

Harold H. Brown (argued), George C. Lyon, of Haight, Lyon Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., John B. Wisely, Jr., Yuma, Ariz., Victor J. Van Bourg, of Levy, Deroy, Geffner Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.

Joseph E. Mayer, Atty. (argued), Stephen J. Solomon, Atty., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Petition for review from the National Labor Relations Board.

Before BARNES and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT, District Judge.

The Honorable William B. Enright, United States District Judge, Southern District of California, sitting by designation.


Without going into factual detail, we conclude that we must deny the order for enforcement, set aside the two orders and decisions, and remand with instructions to dismiss the proceedings against petitioners.

In June, 1965, petitioners, as employers of melon packers, fired a group of workers who had gone on strike. The Board concluded the strike was a protected concerted activity. We disagree, finding it was a five day wildcat strike, viewed as such by both the employers and the union. We decline to follow NLRB v. R. C. Can Co., 328 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1964), but instead follow NLRB v. Draper Corp., 145 F.2d 199 (4th Cir. 1944). See: NLRB v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 419 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1969), where we cited NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 87 S.Ct. 2001, 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967) and the interplay between § 7 and § 9(a).

We held the Supreme Court "at least" implied that "by joining a union an employee gives up or waives some of his § 7 rights."

The strike was not a protected concerted activity. No unfair labor practice was proved. In view of this conclusion we need not discuss petitioners' other alleged errors.

Enforcement denied. The Decision and Order of the NLRB dated April 24, 1969, and the Supplemental Decision and Order of NLRB dated August 27, 1971, are each set aside, and the matter remanded for dismissal.


Summaries of

Lee A. Consaul Co. v. Nat. Labor Relations Bd.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 24, 1972
469 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Lee A. Consaul Co. v. Nat. Labor Relations Bd.

Case Details

Full title:LEE A. CONSAUL CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 24, 1972

Citations

469 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Western Addition Community Org. v. N.L.R.B

See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. R.C. Can Co., 328 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1964); Western Contracting Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 322…

East Chicago Rehabilitation Center v. N.L.R.B

Thus, as we said in NLRB v. Kearney Trecker Corp., 237 F.2d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 1956), Draper and…