Case Name: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GRUNWALD-MARX, INC., Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-04-03
Citations: 290 F.2d 210
Docket Number: No. 17023
Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GRUNWALD-MARX, INC., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 290
Pages: 210–210

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GRUNWALD-MARX, INC., Respondent.
No. 17023.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
April 3, 1961.
Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Rosanna A. Blake, and Donald J. Bardell, Washington, D. C., for N. L. R. B.
Hill, Farrer & Burrill, and Ray L. Johnson, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We decline to enforce the board's proposed order.
While one single isolated instance of a threat may be enough for an unfair labor practice under section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. C.A. § 158(a) (1), yet the vice president's purported threat shows no course of conduct and in the frame of the events is such that we can only regard it as de minimis.
The weakness of the case is well illustrated by the hearing examiner's conclusion that there was no threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit and he found support in the dissent of one member of the board.