Mcleod v. Business Machine And Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board (1962)

In § 10(f) proceedings the function of the federal district court consists of determining (1) whether the temporary injunctive relief would be “just and proper” in terms of general equitable principles and (2) whether there is “reasonable cause” for the Regional Director “to believe such [unfair labor practice] charge is true and that a complaint should issue,” which this Court in McLeod v. Business Mach. & Office Appliance Mechanics, supra, 300 F.2d at 241, interpreted to m…

When a violation of 8(b)(4)(D) is charged, it is particularly important that this position be preserved, for the federal labor law derived from this section is still in its germinal stage. 11 In 10(l) proceedings the function of the federal district court consists of determining (1) whether the temporary injunctive relief would be 'just and proper' in terms of general equitable principles and (2) whether there is 'reasonable cause' for the Regional Director 'to believe such …

In McLeod, the Second Circuit reviewed the legal component of the reasonable cause standard to determine whether the district court judge "was wrong, not whether he was 'clearly' so." McLeod, 300 F.2d 237, 239 (quoting Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. v. McLeod, 300 F.2d 222 (2d Cir.1962)).

In McLeod , the Second Circuit reviewed the legal component of the reasonable cause standard to determine whether the district court judge “was wrong, not whether he was ‘clearly’ so.” McLeod, 300 F.2d 237, 239 (quoting Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. v. McLeod, 300 F.2d 222 (2d Cir.1962)).

GAF Corp. v. Heyman, 724 F.2d 727, 738 (2d Cir.1983) (review of application of legal standard to facts not limited by clearly erroneous rule); Cathbake Investment Co. v. Fisk Electric Co., 700 F.2d 654, 656 (11th Cir.1983) (question of law subject to plenary review); K & M Joint Venture v. Smith International, Inc., 669 F.2d 1106, 1111-12 (6th Cir.1982) (review of mixed questions not bound by *895 clearly erroneous standard); First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Pepper, 547 …

See Hendrix, 592 F.2d at 445-46 ; McLeod v. Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board Local 459, 300 F.2d 237, 239-240 (2d Cir.1962).

Bd., Local 459, 300 F.2d 237, 240 (2d Cir. 1962).

Bd., Local 459, 300 F.2d 237, 240 (2d Cir. 1962).

We do not regard the opinion by Judge Marshall, as he then was, in McLeod v. Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, 300 F.2d 237, 241 (2 Cir. 1962), which used the phrase 'a reasonable possibility of the Board sustaining the unfair labor practice charge' as changing the criterion; the court there vacated an injunction because 'previous Board decisions preclude it from finding an unfair labor practice here without reversing field, and . . . there has …

We do not regard the opinion by Judge Marshall, as he then was, in McLeod v. Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, 300 F.2d 237, 241 (2 Cir. 1962), which used the phrase “a reasonable possibility of the Board sustaining the unfair labor practice charge” as changing the criterion; the court there vacated an injunction because “previous Board decisions preclude it from finding an unfair labor practice here without reversing field, and there has been n…

Bd., 300 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1962).

Bd., 300 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir.1962).

This standard of review is not an issue in our reversal of the decision below, “[b]ecause there is no dispute as to the material facts in evidence and because we are faced solely with questions of law * * McLeod v. Business Mach, and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Bd., 300 F.2d 237, 239 (2d Cir. 1962).

This standard of review is not an issue in our reversal of the decision below, 'because there is no dispute as to the material facts in evidence and because we are faced solely with questions of law * * *.' McLeod v. Business Mach. and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Bd., 300 F.2d 237, 239 (2d Cir. 1962). 13 The issue, then, is whether the petitioner had 'reasonable cause to believe' that the respondent local violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B). 14 On the basis of the e…

Bd, 300 F.2d 237 , 242 (2d Cir. 1962) (“We must … defer to the clear purport of Board precedents, whether we believe them right or wrong”).

With respect to whether there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed, petitioner “is not required to show that an unfair labor practice occurred or that the precedents governing the case are in perfect harmony, but only that there is ‘reasonable cause to believe that a Board decision finding an unfair labor practice will be enforced by a Court of Appeals.’ ” Id. at 1033 , quoting McLeod v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechani…

The district court need not find that “an unfair labor practice occurred, or that the precedents governing the case are in perfect harmony, but only that there is ‘reasonable cause to believe that a Board decision finding an unfair labor practice will be enforced by a Court of Appeals.’ ” Kaynard v. Mego Corp., 633 F.2d 1026, 1033 (2d Cir.1980) *145 (Friendly, J.) (quoting McLeod v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, 300 F.2d 237, 242, n. 17 (2…

Cf. McLeod, For and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459 I.U.E.R.M.W., 300 F.2d 237, 239 (2d Cir. 1962); Acme Highway Products Corp. v. D.

Workers Local 459, 300 F.2d 237 , 241 (2d Cir. 1962). 5 .

See, e. g., McLeod v. Business Machine & Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, 2 Cir., 1962, 300 F.2d 237 , especially note 15 and appended text, and Judge Moore’s dissent, note 1, as a judicial recognition of a fact of modern life that the mere presence of pickets at a retail establishment has the capacity for either great persuasiveness or great damage, depending on the point of view, even though the retail establishment does not sell any product of the primary empl…