Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/99032/meat-cutters-vs-labor-board
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 11:43:26
Document Index: 415680446

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 35', '§ 1001', '§ 9', '§ 35', '§ 1001', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 9']

Meat Cutters Vs Labor Board - Citation 99032 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Meat Cutters Vs. Labor Board - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/99032
Case Number 352 U.S. 153
Appellant Meat Cutters
meat cutters v. labor board - 352 u.s. 153 (1956) u.s. supreme court meat cutters v. labor board, 352 u.s. 153 (1956) amalgamated meat cutters & butcher workmen of north america, afl-cio v. national labor relations board no. 40 argued november 14, 1956 decided december 10, 1956 352 u.s. 153 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit syllabus the criminal penalty imposed by § 35a of the criminal code, 18 u.s.c. § 1001, is the exclusive remedy for the filing of a false non-communist affidavit under § 9(h) of the national labor relations act. leedom v. international union, ante, p. 352 u. s. 145 . pp. 352 u. s. 153 -156. 226 f.2d 194 reversed. mr......
Meat Cutters v. Labor Board - 352 U.S. 153 (1956)
U.S. Supreme Court Meat Cutters v. Labor Board, 352 U.S. 153 (1956)
The criminal penalty imposed by § 35A of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, is the exclusive remedy for the filing of a false non-Communist affidavit under § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act. Leedom v. International Union, ante, p. 352 U. S. 145 . Pp. 352 U. S. 153 -156.
This is a companion case to Leedom v. International Union, ante, p. 352 U. S. 145 . International Fur and Leather Workers Union [ Footnote 1 ] filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that respondent Lannom Mfg. Co. had interfered with the rights of its employees guaranteed by the Act. This charge was filed
In August, 1953, an indictment was returned against Ben Gold, an officer of the union, charging that the § 9(h) affidavit which he filed with the Board on August 30, 1950, was false. In 1954, Gold was convicted for that offense. [ Footnote 2 ] Thereafter, the Board ordered the union to show cause why its compliance status under the Act should not be altered unless Gold were removed from office. The union reelected Gold as its president. Shortly thereafter, the Board declared the union out of compliance with § 9(h). 108 N.L.R.B. 1190, 1191. The union then obtained from the District Court for the District of Columbia a preliminary injunction enjoining the Board from altering or restricting the union's compliance status by reason of Gold's conviction. The Court of Appeals
As noted, the complaint in the unfair labor practice proceeding was issued in February, 1952, more than twelve months after the affidavit of August 30, 1950. Section 9(h) provides that no investigation shall be made or complaint issued on behalf of a union unless there is on file with the Board a non-Communist affidavit of each officer "executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period." There was no charge against Gold for filing a false affidavit in 1951. The Court of Appeals met that difficulty by presuming that a person who was a Communist in 1950 continued as such through 1951 and through the critical date of February, 1952, in absence of evidence showing a change in the factual situation. [ Footnote 3 ] 226 F.2d 194, 198-199.
The petitioner has also urged that Gold's conviction for filing a false affidavit could form no basis for holding the union in decompliance prior to the affirmance of Gold's conviction on appeal. At the time of the decision below, Gold's appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As noted, [ Footnote 4 ] we have granted certiorari to review the affirmance of his conviction.
For the reasons stated in Leedom v. International Union, ante, p. 352 U. S. 145 , we conclude that the sole sanction for the filing of a false affidavit under § 9(h) is the criminal penalty imposed on the officer who files a false affidavit, not decompliance of the union nor the withholding of the benefits of the Act that are granted once the specified officers file their § 9(h) affidavits. Having so concluded, we find it unnecessary to reach the collateral phases of this controversy.
"A court of competent jurisdiction has found that Gold's affidavit of August 30, 1950, was false. The critical date as to compliance with § 9(h) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended was the date of issuance of the Board's complaint. NLRB v. Dant, 344 U. S. 375 . . . . If the complaint had issued during the twelve-month period while this false affidavit was in effect, the question before us would be clear-cut. That, however, is not the case. "