Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ephraim Haspel, 228 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1955). · Go Syfert
Search
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ephraim Haspel, 228 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1955). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: National Labor Relations Board v. Castaways Management, Inc. (ca11, 1989-04-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Castaways Management, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See NLRB v. Family Heritage Home-Beaver Dam, Inc., 491 F.2d 347 , 351 n. 5 (7th Cir.1974); NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2d Cir.1955).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Maine Caterers, Inc., Brotherhood of Industrial Caterers, Intervenor
1st Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
The Board points out that if “the Company is truly out of business, ‘the Board will naturally not require action now impossible for respondent to perform.’ ” NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2d Cir.1955).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Globe Security Services, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
See, e. g., Southport Petroleum, supra, 315 U.S. at 106 , 62 S.Ct. 452 ; Colonial Knitting, supra at 952 n. 10; NLRB v. Autotronics, 434 F.2d 651, 652 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (se mble); Kostilnik, supra at 734 n. 1; NLRB v. Missouri Transit Co., 250 F.2d 261, 263-65 (8th Cir. 1957); NLRB v. Lamar Creamery Co., 246 F.2d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1957); NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2d Cir. 1955) (per curiam) (semble); NLRB v. Dixon, 184 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1950); NLRB v. Weirton Steel Co., 135 F.2d 494, 498 (3d Cir. 1943) (entity preserved under state law for purposes of suit).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. Rosalia Kostilnik, of the Estate of Michael Kostilnik, D/B/A Pacific Baking Company
3rd Cir. · 1969 · confidence medium
In so doing we join the Second Circuit which, in similar circumstances, said: “There is no merit to respondent’s contention that, since the question has been rendered ‘academic’ by reason of his going out of business, we ought not to grant enforcement of the Board’s order.” NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2d Cir. 1955), accord, NLRB v. Lamar Creamery Co., 246 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1957); NLRB v. Electric Steam Radiator Corp., 321 F.2d 733 (6th Cir. 1963); 3 NLRB v. Acme Mattress Co., 192 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1951); *735 NLRB v. Dixon, 184 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1950). 4 We conclude that th…
cited Cited as authority (rule) National Labor Relations Board v. MacCollum Paper Company, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1966 · confidence medium
National Labor Relations Board v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2nd Cir. 1955).
discussed Cited "see" Gaetano & Associates Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
2d Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155, 156 (2d Cir.1955) (per curiam) (leaving the question of enforcement for compliance proceeding where respondent claimed on appeal that it had gone out of business); Cap Santa Vue, Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.2d 883 , 886 (D.C.Cir.1970) (same); see also NLRB v. Globe Sec.
cited Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. David Buttrick Company
1st Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Haspel, 228 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1955), and NLRB v. Somerset Classics, Inc., 193 F.2d 613, 616 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 344 U.S. 816 , 73 S.Ct. 10 , 97 L.Ed. 635 (1952).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
Ephraim HASPEL, Respondent
23287_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 20, 1955.
228 F.2d 155
Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Elizabeth W. Weston and Alice Andrews, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner., Roy Guthman and George E. Reynolds, New York City, for respondent.
Clark, Lumbard, Per Curiam, Waterman.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The facts are set forth in the decision of the Labor Board, 109 N. L. R. B. No. 8. Respondent, an individual employer of about fifteen-persons, performs finishing operations on garments supplied by other firms. After being approached by a representative of Local 66 of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, who requested that he sign a contract with that organization, respondent interrogated his employees, who stated that they did not wish to become members of Local 66. Respondent, then realizing that, in order for him to continue receiving contract work from unionized employers, his employees would have to become members of some union, put to them a choice between an independent[*156] Shop Union and Local 66. The employees then formed a Shop Union at a meeting at which Haspel’s foreman was present, and Haspel promptly recognized it. The Board found violations of §§ 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (2) and (1), in HaspeTs contribution of financial and other support to the Shop Union. Such support consisted of making his premises available for union meetings, paying officers of the Shop Union for time spent in consulting a legal advisor, permitting notices of Shop Union meetings to be posted on HaspeTs bulletin board, and granting prompt recognition to the Shop Union. The Board, however, dismissed an allegation charging domination of the Shop Union.

In reaching its decision the Board did not accept the conclusions of the trial examiner, who had dismissed the complaint in its entirety on the grounds that the “Shop Union was not instigated by the Respondent but evolved from a situation in the New York City garment .industry with which the employees were familiar” and found that there was no justification for the allegations of instigation, assistance, and domination. There was, however, no dispute over the basic facts, but only over the resulting conclusions of law, where the report of the trial examiner is not definitive. See Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 496, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. The determinations here reached by the Board fall within the area of its special competence and are clearly authorized by the statute. See N. L. R. B. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; N. L. R. B. v. Pinkerton’s Nat. Detective Agency, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 230; Independent Emp. Ass’n of Neptune Meter Co. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 158 F.2d 448, certiorari denied 333 U.S. 826, 68 S.Ct. 449, 92 L.Ed. 1112. In view of the statutory policy to promote and preserve the independence of labor organizations, we find the conclusion of the Board fully justified.

There is no merit to respondent’s contention that, since the question has been rendered “academic” by reason of his going out of business, we ought not to grant enforcement of the Board’s order. N. L. R. B. v. Somerset Classics, Inc., 2 Cir., 193 F.2d 613, 616, certiorari denied Modern Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 344 U.S. 816, 73 S.Ct. 10, 97 L.Ed. 635. The present status of the business is material only on the matter of compliance with our decree, and the Board will naturally not require action now impossible for respondent to perform. N. L. R. B. v. Acme Mattress Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 524, 528.

Enforcement granted.