# National Labor Relations Board v. West Coast Casket Co., Inc

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 29, 1953 · 205 F.2d 902

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9443834

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WEST COAST CASKET CO., Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 29, 1953
- **Citations:** 205 F.2d 902
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pope
- **Judges:** Denman, Orr, Pope
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9443834

## Opinion text

POPE, Circuit Judge.
I concur in so much of the opinion as finds respondent guilty of unfair labor practices in attempting to discourage the union activities, contrary to § 8(a)(1). I think, however, that the evidence wholly fails to support a finding that employee Smith was discharged for union activities, or that the Union struck on account of .Smith’s discharge. The only evidence that Smith was thus discharged is the testimony as to what Smith said forelady Settle said to her. Settle, although a supervisor for some purposes, was not an agent of the employer authorized to make statements bind? *909 ing on him, or an agent any part of whose duties included making statements. Settle was not a witness. What she said to Smith was purely hearsay and inadmissible. National Labor Rel. Board v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 9 Cir., 202 F.2d 671, 673 .
Numerous union members testified but none but Wells was asked as to what transpired at the union meeting, lie alone said that the Smith discharge was there discussed “quite thoroughly”. Discussed by whom ? Who else was present at that meeting? As to who was there, there is no evidence. No other union member was asked about this discussion. The Union put out circulars explaining the reason for its action. None even mentioned Smith or her discharge.
I think the Universal Camera rule requires us to refuse to credit so patently improbable a tale.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9443834. Public record. Not legal advice.