H. FRANK MALONE, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE ELEVENTH REGION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLEE,
v.
UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, APPELLANT

4th Cir. | 1970-10-13
No. 15074
Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.
432 F.2d 554 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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 district court did not err in finding reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred and in issuing an injunction.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board investigated a secondary boycott charge against a union for picketing at a shipping pier. The Board found reasonabl…

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:

A secondary boycott directed at Georgetown Steel Corporation was charged to United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO and investigated by the National Labor Relations Board. The complaint alleged that the union during August 1970 was picketing at the entrance to a public pier in Georgetown, South Carolina, from which the company’s steel is shipped, announcing that the corporation’s employees had struck.

The Board determined that it reasonably appeared that an unfair labor practice — a violation of section 8(b) (4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(b) (4) — had been committed by the union in maintaining the picket line.

On August 29, 1970 the Federal District Court for South Carolina, on the petition of the Board, issued an injunction forbidding the maintenance of the picketing until the Board should finally adjudicate the dispute, section 10(i), 29 U.S.C. 160 (i). Without success, application was made by the union to the District Court and thereafter to the Chief Judge of this court to stay the injunction.. This appeal followed.

Critical to this controversy is the soundness of the Board’s finding that there was “reasonable cause to believe that such charge is true”. The issue for the courts’ decision is not the union’s guilt or innocence of a transgression of the Act. The inquiry is not so definitive. When the finding has been made by the District Court — as it was here — that “reasonable cause” is present, an injunction may be issued.

A review of the record is convincing that the evidence supports the trial judge’s finding. Certainly, it was not “clearly erroneous”, F.R.Civ.P. 52(a), nor was there abuse of discretion in granting the injunction.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw