Case Name: Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 282 of Connecticut C. I. O. et al. v. Charles Plink & Son
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1948
Citations: 15 Conn. Supp. 339
Docket Number: File No. 70408
Parties: Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 282 of Connecticut C. I. O. et al. v. Charles Plink & Son
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Supplement
Volume: 15
Pages: 339–339

Head Matter:
Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union Local 282 of Connecticut C. I. O. et al. v. Charles Plink & Son
Superior Court New Haven County
File No. 70408
James F. Rosen, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff.
William L. Hadden, Attorney General and Daniel E. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General, for the Defendant.

Opinion:
WYNNE, J.
There can be little doubt that the defendants were actuated by motives other than an overweening sympathy with the plaintiff's objectives. Yet it seems to the court that their conduct neither violates the letter nor the spirit of fair labor practices. The net result shows no subterfuge nor devious expedients.
A full, fair and impartial hearing resulted in conclusions of law and fact by the state board of labor relations that are cer' tainly dispassionate and objective.
Because the negotiations proved abortive does not mean that the employers were not bargaining in good faith. Nor can the court say 'because the board permitted an interested attorney to testify that the ultimate conclusion was vitiated.
The net result shows that the defendants acted in good faith and have adhered to a business expedient they had a right to adopt.
The appeal must be, and is dismissed.