National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Grunwald-marx, Inc., Respondent, 290 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1961)
Annotate this CaseStuart 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.
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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
