NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND LOCAL NO. 4372, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, RESPONDENTS

6th Cir. | 1959-05-14
No. 13729
Before SIMONS and ALLEN, Circuit Judges, and CHOATE, District Judge.
266 F.2d 823 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1959) Negative Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was supported by substantial evidence and proper procedure, with a minor modification to remove vague language.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board sought enforcement of its order against respondents for violating the National Labor Relations Act. Respondents arg…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board, pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act as Amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. for enforcement of its order against respondents dated May 1, 1958.

An examination of the record in this case, and the consideration of the briefs and the oral argument convinces us that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the respondents violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 158, and that the Board’s procedure was valid and proper. Respondents complain that paragraph 1 of the Board’s order directing respondents to “Cease and desist from in any manner restraining or coercing employees of Ohio Consolidated Telephone Company or any other employer in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act” is too broad. We agree only as respects the use of the words “in any manner” which are, in our opinion, vague and subject to misinterpretation, and therefore we order that these words be stricken from said paragraph 1. We direct that a decree should issue enforcing the Board’s order against the respondents, after the aforementioned words “in any manner” are stricken from paragraph 1 thereof.

Accordingly, a decree in the usual form may be submitted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw