Case Name: PHILADELPHIA DRESS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SIDELE FASHIONS, INC.; Personality Sportswear, Inc.; Mac J. Cahn; and Sidney L. Schiro
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-08-14
Citations: 305 F.2d 825
Docket Number: Nos. 13767, 13830
Parties: PHILADELPHIA DRESS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SIDELE FASHIONS, INC.; Personality Sportswear, Inc.; Mac J. Cahn; and Sidney L. Schiro.
Judges: Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 305
Pages: 825–826

Head Matter:
PHILADELPHIA DRESS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SIDELE FASHIONS, INC.; Personality Sportswear, Inc.; Mac J. Cahn; and Sidney L. Schiro.
Nos. 13767, 13830.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued June 19, 1962.
Decided Aug. 14, 1962.
Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Assistant General Counsel, Samuel M. Singer, Attys., N. L. R. B., on the brief), for National Labor Relations Board.
Morris P. Glushien, New York City (Max Zimny, Edward V. Sparer, New York City, Joseph B. Meranze, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for Phila. Dress Joint Board, etc.
Geoffrey J. Cunniff, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sidele Fashions, Inc., Personality Sportswear, Inc., Mac J. Cahn and Sidney L. Schiro.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have examined the briefs and the record and have weighed with care the arguments of the parties upon the respective petitions for review or enforcement of the order of the Board. We can perceive no error in the proceedings. Consequently, the Board's order will be enforced.