Case Name: Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, Inc. Case
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1944-11-27
Citations: 350 Pa. 601
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 159
Parties: Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, Inc. Case.
Judges: Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearne, JJ..
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 350
Pages: 601–603

Head Matter:
Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, Inc. Case.
Argued September 28, 1944.
Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearne, JJ..
David I. McAlister, with Mm McAlister & Zelt and D. C. Jennings, for appellant, Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, Inc.
Sylvan Libson, for appellee.
November 27, 1944:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from tbe dismissal of tbe petition of Tube City Taxi and Transfer Company, a corporation, asking tbe court to set aside an order of tbe Labor Relations Board directing petitioner to desist from certain violations of Section 6, clauses (a), (d) and (e) of the Labor Relations Act: Act of June 1, 1937, P. L. 1168, 43 PS section 211.6. Tbe assignments of error are to tbe order, and to tbe overruling of three conclusions of law. They follow from tbe findings of fact, which we take to be unchallenged, because not assigned for error.
Briefly stated, it would appear that Raymond Patterson conducted a taxicab business in McKeesport in and prior to 1939; that when tbe time arrived to renew this contract with tbe Union, differences arose which could not be composed. He thereupon organized tbe appellant corporation, transferred to it bis taxicab business in exchange for shares of stock, sold a minority of tbe shares to certain former employees and thereafter refused to bargain with tbe Union. Tbe Board took testimony and made findings of fact and conclusions of law and, after making corrections pursuant to bearing on exceptions, made tbe order subsequently reviewed by tbe learned court below and now before this court. Tbe case is determined by tbe basic findings of fact: in substance, it was found that as part of tbe effort to defeat the dissenting employees, tbe corporation was organized and tbe business transferred to it in circumstances which continued Mr. Patterson in control, actively directing the business and continuing the hostility to the Union which the Board found he had continuously manifested in violation of the act. As appellant does not now com-, plain of the findings of fact, the only question is whether the order was within the statute. There is no doubt of that.
Order affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.