# Daily Review Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · November 2, 1951 · 192 F.2d 269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228059

## Case

- **Full name:** DAILY REVIEW CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** November 2, 1951
- **Citations:** 192 F.2d 269; 29 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2023; 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 3400
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Frank
- **Judges:** Swan, Clark, Frank
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228059

## Opinion text

FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The Board, in finding that the Union did not terminate or abandon the oral agreement of July 17, 1947, relied on an admission in the testimony of the company’s president. It concluded that proposals by the Union, subsequent to the oral agreement and inconsistent with it, were presented as alternatives to that agreement and to induce the company to put it in writing and to perform it. Whether the order could stand, had there been no error in the hearing before the examiner, we need not now say. The examiner erred in refusing to require the Union’s witness Byrnes to answer certain questions, on cross-examination, concerning the discussions at a meeting with the New York State Mediation Board. It is argued that the company was not harmed by this refusal, because the examiner and the Board accepted the testimony of the
*270
company’s witnesses about what was said at that meeting. We think that argument insufficient. For all we know, Byrnes’ testimony on this subject might have disclosed an abandonment by the Union of the July agreement. Consequently, we shall not now decide this case but shall remand to the Board with directions to reopen the hearing to permit the company to examine Byrnes concerning the State Board meeting. The examiner and the Board shall then reconsider their findings in the light of this testimony, and the Board shall then decide whether or not to abide by its order. If it does, the company may again petition this court.
Remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/228059. Public record. Not legal advice.