Court Opinion

ID: 9455255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:16:29.879395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:31.630331
License: Public Domain

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent that it holds that Laclede’s failure to bargain with the Union before locking out its employees was not viola-tive of § 8(a) (5).
I find no basis for remand of the case to the Board. The briefs on the petition for review are directed entirely to the validity of the § 8(a) (5) holding. No issue is raised before us with respect to § 8(a) (1) or § 8(a) (3) violations. Questions not raised, briefed nor argued will ordinarily be given no consideration by an appellate court. Smith v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 8 Cir., 368 F.2d 511, 515, and cases there cited. Moreover, on the record before us, a remand would in my view serve no useful purpose.
I would reverse the Board’s finding of a § 8(a) (5) violation and deny the Board’s petition for enforcement.