# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — National Labor Relations Board v. Crawford Manufacturing Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1304%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 390 U.S. 1028 ## Text LIBRARY . : fous | | SUPREME COURT, U, & th aR ® a =. DAVIS, CLERK IN THE. ees Court of the United States ‘October Term, 1967 . f ——41 91 AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF Sem AFL-CIO, e ' ~ P. etittoner, 4. >] Vv. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND CRAWFORD MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ee Respondents. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE — ‘UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Jacos SHEINKMAN, Currrorp D. Reznicexk, - . Rosert J. Rasr, | Attorneys for Petitioner, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. 15 Union Square West, New York, N.Y. 10003, — (212) 255-7800. Opinions Below ...........4....0-00. Svenede ae | 1 Jurisdiction .......0......e.0ec ee. Nees 2 Questions Presented errs Pee \ jpescueduear 2 Statute Involved .............. waeesaceeeuer frerr 3 Statement ........... eeaxladsdunars oe Perr er. :* A. The facts and proceedings WN conen bas ov 3 i&B. The Union’s majority .......2.26etsee00 7 - Reasons for granting the Writ ...... eeeeunes reene 9 1. Conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court 9 2. Non-compliance of. the court with the Su- preme Court’s ‘‘substantial evidence’’ doc- trine......... cmbeneesseune eegrwevenssesss 10 3. Conflict among the Circuits .......... aed a ER ars EN ROAR ey Bee Dee 14 icc era caeecaceaw arene eeeee eee 15 Bauer Welding and Metal Fabricators v. National . Labor Relations Board, 358 F. 2d 766 (C.A. 8) . 13 Bernel Foam Products Co., 146 NLRB 1277 (1964) 4 Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. National Labor Re- lations Board, No. 30844, decided Decemfer 12, Epes, Ge Lameeee Ses (OLA. B) on. ccc ccccceccccss 13 Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268 ( 1963), enforced, 351 F. 2d 914 (C.A. 6) ...........0.. 12, 13 Engineers and Fabricators v. National Labor Rela- _ tions Board, 376 F. 2d 482 (C.A. 5) ............ 13 - Purr’s, Ine. v. National Labor Relations Board, 381 F.2d 562, certiorari denied, 389 U.S. 840 ........ . International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union v. Na- tional Labor Relations Board (Bernhard-Altman), 366 Uz. S. 731 eeesen oeauoeut as @ 6 a © & oe eee eee Irving Air Chute Co. v. National Labor wennome - Board, 350 F. 2d 176 (C.A. 2) Se OE eee PAGE ‘SB, - Joy Silk Mills, Ine. v. National Labor Relations , Board, 185 F.. 2d 732 (0.A.D.C.) Certiorari SM OE MD ori sass s vevecdabesececeeess National Labor Relations Board v. Dan Howard ' Manufacturing Co.,-No. 16,154, decided Jannary 11, 1968, 67 LRRM 2218 (C.A.7) ... si escceevees National Labor Relations Board v. Logan Packing Co., No. 10,355, 66 LRRM 2596 ..........:....... N ational Labor Relations Board v. S.E. Nichols Co, OO Oe OD asics acc ccessvesedivncseseds or National Labor Relations Board v. Sehon Stevenson" & Co., No. 10,189, 66 LRRM 2603 .............. | National Labor Relations . Board v. Southbridge _ Metal Works, Inc., 380 F. 2d 851 (C.A. 1) “..... National —Labor- Relations Board v. Swan ‘Super Cleaners, Inc., No. 16,952, decided October 25, 1967, 66 LRRM 2385 (C.A. 6) ....... eer ere National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manuv- facturing Company, 369 -U.S. 404 .:....0...: noe United Automobile Workers v. National Labor Rela- tions Board and Preston Products. Ine., No. 20,137, et al., decided-~ November 14, 1967, 66 LRRM 2548 ........ SUUMSUUAL CAE a uo kd oles eee . 11, United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., eis oles cickbcanneee copier "Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations I OP SE PD env keticcrscvivccccecececs 12.13 | IN THE ‘Supreme Court of the United States October — 1967 No. ,, Vv AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WorKERs OF Amnawa, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, v. NationaL Lasor ReELatTions Boarp AND Crawrorp Manuracturine Co., Inc.,; Respondents. , dl PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F OR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL- CIO (referred to herein as the-.“‘Amalgamated’’ or the ‘‘Union’’), Intervenor in the proceedings below, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgrwnt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this case. The Solicitor General filed: a petition for certiorari in this case on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board on January 36, 1968. Opinions Below The opinion of the court of appeals, not yet: officially reported, is contained in 66 LRRM 2529. The decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board is re-. pe ene we ‘tibcitle ee ery Neer ne EE elites Radics Danced ipete b ERAN ASS Hae nist ie at gee Lea BG BRR tld ts 6s ine Be MTSE ain geo ie ported at 161 NLRB No. 91 (1966). The court’s opinion is contained in the Board’s petition; App. A (pp. 15-33) and the Board’s Decision and Order is contained in the Board’s petition App. C (pp. 36-135) and at J.A. 11-1111 The opinion of the court below denying the Amalgamated’ 8 motion for rehearing is not contained in the Board’s peti- - tion and is attached to the: Amalgamated’ . petition as Appendix EK. Jurisdiction The judgment of the court of appeals was entered October 27, 1967 (Board petition App. B, pp. 34-35.). -The Amalgamated filed a motion for rehearing November 24, 1967, which motion was denied by the court of appeals De- cember 6, 1967 (Appendix E, infra, pp. 15-16). ‘The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254 (1). | ; | Questions Presented — ; 1. Where substantial evidence supports the finding of mae the National Labor Relations Board that eight employees _ were laid off on account‘of their union activity, may the court of appeals reverse the Board because it chooses to accept the company’s explanation for the lay-offs? -.2. Where substantial evidence supports the findings of the N ational Labor Relations Board: (a) that a majority of — the employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining signed cards which clearly authorize the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes; (b) that none e of 1 In order to avoid duplication of the record; references to pro- ceedings below are keyed to the National Labor Relations Board’s petition for certiorari (referred to herein as “Board petition”), as _ well as to the Joint Appendix in the court below (referred to herein as “J.A.”). ts eae na ae ealieah ae Nicene Litnlesas ty i i a a Fy — aa as the employees establishing said madedtie' x were told that the cards would be used solely te. obtain a Board representa- tion election; and (c) that the company by other acts and conduct engaged in unfair labor practices designed to dis- sipate the union’s majority; may the court of appeals — refuse to.¢nforce a bargaining order based on such findings — because it decides that the employees were confused a as to the.purp e of the cards? Statute Involved ~< ya The relevant provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.) are set forth in the Board’s petition, _——— D, pp. vanes Statement A. The facts and proceedings below This case arises out of the Amalgamated’s campaign to ' organize the. employees of Crawford Manufacturing Com- pany (referred to herein as the ‘‘Employer”’ or the ‘‘Com- _ pany’’) at the Employer’s Emporia, Kansas plant. ‘The Union’s representatives solicited employees to sign au-- thorization cards designating the Amalgamated as their collective bargaining representative by telling them in ‘straight-forward, accurate and thorough terms the steps the Union would take to obtain bargaining rights. ' Authorization cards were first, distributed to employees at the plant gate on January 7, 1965? by Jay Dee Patrick, a national representative of the AFL-CIO acting on behalf of the Amalgamated. The cards were attached to a leaflet bearing the prominent heading ‘‘An Invitation to Join’’ the ‘‘ACWA”’ (Board petition pp. 44-45; J.A. 117-118, 2 All dates are 1965 unless otherwise noted. 4 631-634). The language of the cards, set out below,? spe- . Cifically states that it, is an ‘application for membership, authorizes the Amalgamated to represent the signatory in negotiations concerning conditions of employment, ‘and ‘ makes no.mention of an election whatsoever. The follow- ta ing day, Plant Manager Jonés addressed all the employees and, as if to make plain the meaning of the cards, stated that ‘‘yesterday an outside union organizer handed all of ° our employees an invitation to join an outside..union.’’ _. (Board petition p. 45;-J.A. 588-589). At the Amalgamated’s first organizational meeting, on January 12, Patrick read the cards to some 75 employees. He explained thatthe Union would demand recognition on: the basis of the signed authorization cards, but pointed out candidly that the demand would probably be rejected and that it-would then be necessary to proceed to an election ‘ (Board petition pp. 49-50; J.A. 121-122, 133).. Patrick ® The card reads as follows: APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP . oe : in the | _ Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, a2 daa AFL-CIO as 1627 Locust St. a pts St. Louis (3) Mo. 7 CEntral 1-9329 | I, the undersigned, hereby apply for membership in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and do’ hereby appoint and authorize the officers thereof, to represent and negotiate for me in-all matters, pertaining to wages, hours and other conditions of employment... I SE ta cli eee ce duan deeeadieecese cea MENS ctuwaseacessavevuehese (Reaetne ees eene denn bhesdeeecas ‘Telephone Number: ...............e00000% eae SES biaeedndssereeet sees. peetadnweueseeeds eteeeeteeses ee 5 told the employees to take the cards nein read and think __ about them and discuss the matter with their families, and return the cards to the Union in the envelopes provided (Board petition p. 50; J.A. 123).° _ By January 18 the Union had received over 100 ‘teint authorization cards from employees i in an appropriate col- lective bargaining unit of 172 employees (Board petition pp. 52,’ 104-105).. The Union thereupon made its written ‘demand for recognition in the said unit, and petitioned the Board for an election. The Employer rejected this demand on.January 20, by which time the Board had received the Union’s election petition ( Board petition pp. 43, 53-54; J.A. 621-623). ' On January 19, Patrick held a second meeting, ¢ Seaisilal by about 72 employees. Patrick informed the employees that he had sent the Company a letter requesting recogni- tion based upon the authorization cards and read the letter to them. He also told them that he had’ ‘petitioned for a Board election in the event the demand was refused which, as he had previously advised them, he anticipated. He told the employeés that they were free to withdraw their ‘authorization cards, as suggested by the: Company, and offered to help anyone who so wished to get his card back (Board petition p. 58; J. A. 135-136). During the two and a half months .between the com- mencement of the Amalgamated’ S organizing drive and the election, the Board found that the Employer engaged in a course of conduct which was designed to dissipate ~ the Amalgamated’s majority and constituted unfair labor practices, It held that the Employer repeatedly threatened employees with reduced benefits if the Union ,won the election; warned known key Union adherents of reprisals for their. Union activity ; ; coercively interrogated employees 5 Between 10 and 20 employees returned their cards to Patrick at . that. meeting (Board petition p. 52; J. A. 123, 133). The others held their cards for a longer period of time. od es z about their Union activities; and, violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in other respects (Board petition pp. 94-104, 127). The court found that the Board had substantial evidence in the record to support these findings and sus-_ tained its order @irecting the Employer to cease and desist from these violations “ the Act (Board petiiion ip. 18). ane But when it came to the Board’s —— that ; rs - Employer violated Sections 8(a) (3) and 8(a)(5) of the Act—findings that “in the opinion of dissenting J udge | Sobeloff call for a more stringent remedy than ‘‘an in- - effectual wag 2 on the wrist’? ® —the court balked at sus- taining the oard. ~e * The day after the Employer and the - Amalgamated signed a consent election agreement the Employer laid off eight employees only to recall them almost immediately after the: Union lost the election held March 26. Relying upon the timing of the layoffs, the union activity‘of those involved and the transparency of the Employer’s proffered economic justification, the Board held ‘that these layoffs were discriminatory and violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act (Board petition pp. 88-91). Without even raising the ’ question whether substantial, evidence supported the Board’s findings the Court reversed because it independ- ently concluded that there was ‘‘no acceptable basis for this discredit of the company’’ (Board petition pp. 18-19). - The Union was defeated in the election 85 to 69, with 8 iuiuaes ballots. In order to effectively remedy. the numerous violations of the Act by the Employer, the Board set the election aside and ordered the Employer to bargain with the Amalgamated on. the basis of its majority. status - as demonstrated: by the authorization cards. This remedy was not only predicated upon the finding that the Employ- er’s refusal to bargain with the Union was in bad faith — in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, but was granted ~ 6 Judge Sobeloff so characterized that portion of the remedy sustained by the court — petition p. 25). . t. f ’S because the Employer’s conduct made it impossible to hold. a free and fair election (Board petition pp. 102-104). ®The court refused to'enforce the Board’s bargaining order _ because it entertained a doubt that a majority. of the employees validly designated the Union to represent them. So finding, the court did not reach the question whether the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5). of the’ Act or _ whether the remedy is appropriate (Board petition pp. 19-25). j , B. The Union’s majority. The Board sustained the Trial Examiner’s reasoning and conclusion that 101 employees in an appropriate collec- tive bargaining unit of 172 employees validly. designated the Union to represent them. The Trial Examiner gave considerable weight to the uncontroverted facts that the card itself, in plain and unambiguous language, authorizes the Amalgamated to represent the employees; that Patrick read the card to an assembly of about 75 employees; that he subsequently read to about 72 employees a letter he had sent to the Employer requesting recognition on the basis of these authorization cards; and, that, at best, only one employee attempted to covets his bargaining authorization, despite repeated requests by the Employer that the em- ployees do so (Board petition pp. 115-116). The court does not dispute any of these facts and indeed affirms that ~ at the second meeting Patrick told the employees he had used their cards as the basis of his demand for recognition . - (Board petjtion pp. 19-25). The Trial Examiner concluded ~ that Patrick gave a straightforward, clear and truthful account of the uses to which the card would be put. The Trial Examiner found that none of the 101 cards he counted as valid were procured by a representation that the card would be used solely for an election;7 he . % The Trial Examiner’ rejected 4 of the 105 proffered cards on this basis, leaving 101 cards upon which he based the Union’s majority (Board petition. pp. 126, 138). | " atte discredited testimony to this effect when given in response to leading questions or where inconsistent with credited testimony. In assessing the Employer’s attack on the validity of the cards the Trial Examiner noted that the employees testified almost nine months after they signed their cards and appeared not to have a clear recollection at the time of the hearing of the representations made to them previously-(Board petition p. 109). He considered the Employer’s pre-trial interrogations ® to unduly sug- gest to employees that they testify that they had signed the cards in order to obtain an election and noted that employees testifying in front of a hostile Employer would naturally wish to minimize the effect of signing an authori- - zation card by stating it was for some purpose other than representation (Board petition pp. 110-112). For these reasons, he viewed: with reasonable skepticism testimony inconsistent with the overt act of signing a valid and un- — ambiguous authorization card. The court, on the other hand, by taking some of Pat- rick’s statements out of context ® and without considering 8 The questionnaire, distributed by the. Company to practically every employee, is set out in the Board petition pp. 134-136 and at J.A. 558-587. The only question dealing with an election, No. 1(d), _ required the employee to use the word “solely” if he wished to state that representations were made to him about a Board election. It appears that after employees completed the questionnaire they were called in individually by the Company’s attorney ‘to amplify their answers. The Company’s attorney then reduced their. statements to writing using his own language, and had the employees sign or initial the resulting document, see e.g. J.A. 160-164, 191-195, 321-322. ® The court refers only to-those representations by Patrick having to do with an election or application for membership, and completely ignores Patrick’s statements that the cards would first used to demand recognition (Board petition pp. 48-51, 116-118). Dissent- ing Judge Sobeloff cites the other relevant’ portions of the Board’s Decision in footnote 3 of his dissent (Board petition pp. 26-27). With regard to Patrick’s statements about joining the Union, he merely assured employees that ‘their application for membership would not be acted upon until a contract had been successfully negotiated. (Board petition, pp. 117-118). The court’s analysis is not directed at what Patrick said, but rather at the elusive subjective state-of mind of the employees who signed cards. in detail the testimony of even a single employee, rejected all 101 cards outright because. it felt that employees were confused as to the purpose of the cards. 9 Reasons for granting the Writ - ¥ Conflict with decisions of the Sia mw The Fourth Circuit has, in virtually’ all cases recently decided by it, rejected the-notion that validly obtained - authorization cards may create a duty to bargain with a union. If this is not apparent from the court’s wholesale | rejection of the authorization cards in this case, it is seen in two other recent cases in this circuit which must be read with the Crawford decision: 1) National Labor Relations Board v. Logan Packing Co., No. 10, 355, 66 LRRM 2596; and 2) National Labor Relations Board v. Sehon Seveneee & Co., No. 10,189, 66 LRRM 2603, both decided October 27, 1967. While both cases could have been decided on narrow grounds (as pointed out by Judge Sobeloff.in his separate opinion in Stevenson) the court condemned. authorization cards as a predicate for demanding recognition except in ‘extraordinary cases.’’? (66 LRRM at 2603.) This reason- ing makes it virtually impossible for a union to obtain recognition through ‘authorization cards unless the em- ployer voluntarily grants such recognition, a result which is squarely i in. conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision im: United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62; ef. International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Board (Bernhard- ltmann), - 366 U.S. 731; see also Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D.C.), certiorari de-. nied, 341 U.S. 914. Ft» 10 2. Non-compliance of the court with the Supreme Court’s ae “substantial evidence” doctrine. in National Labor Relations Board v. Walton Manufac- turing Company, 369 U.S. 404, this Court reiterated the holding of Universal Camera Corp. v.°National Labor Re- lations Board, 340 U.S. 474, in noting the Fifth Circuit’s failure to apply the ‘‘substantial evidence’’ rule to dis- charge cases decided by the Board. In the instant case the Fourth Circuit has exceeded its scope of review in the same manner as that condemned in Walton. In this case, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that eight employees were laid off because of their union activity, in violation of Se¢tion 8(a) (3) of the Act. The Board based.its conclusion on the timing of the layoffs, the fact that union adherents were selected, and the failure of: the Employer to support its alleged economic justification for the layoffs. In dis- posing of this entire issue in two short paragraphs (Board petition pp. 18-19), the court did not even consider whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion. Rather, it cited the Employer’s proffered economic justi- fication and cryptically. stated ‘‘we see no acceptable basis for this discredit of the company . . . we discern no falsi- fication here’’. At best, the facts give rise to two conflicting views as to the company’s motivation for its conduct. But the court may not “displace the Board’s choice’’ between these two possibilities, where the Board’s conclusion is supported _ by substantial evidence, even though the court could have justifiably drawn a different inference if it had heard the case de novo. Universal Camera, supra at p. 488. ..The court below chose the Employer’s explanation in spite of ‘substantial evidence to support thé Board’s findings, thus ignoring this Court’s instructions in Walton and Universal Camera. (supra) — | ‘il The court’s erroneous interpretation of its reviewing function also permeates its treatment of the authorization ecards. Its approach should be contrasted with that of the D.C. Circuit in the recent. case of. United Automobile Workers v. National Labor Relations Board and Preston Products, Inc., No. 20,137, et al:, decided November 14, 1967, 66 LRRM 2548. The D.C. Cireuit upheld the finding of the Trial Examiner and the Board that employees validly designated the union as their collective bargaining agent, and distinguished the recent decision of the Second Circuit in National Labor Relations Board vy. S.E. Nichols Co.,: 380 F. 2d 438, in which the Second Circuit made an inde- pendent review of the evidence. Commenting on this, the D.C. Circuit wrote: \ ‘“‘The Nichols rule would require us to, ©» mine all relevant testimony in detail, to adjudge che credi- - bility of each witness, and to weigh the evidence. Yet, as noted above, the Board is ‘one of those * agencies presumably equipped or informed by experi- ence to. deal with a specialized field of knowledge’, Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations—— Board, supra, 340 U.S.-at-488,‘and it would be diffi- cult to imagine a topic more clearly within this specialized field than the evaluation of the signifi- cance of the circumstances under which authorization _ . cards are solicited.’”’ — 7 In this case, the Trial Examiner made numerous credi- bility findings, .and the Board in sustaining these findings utilized its particular expertise in determining the validity of the authorization cards. In accordance with the scope of review delineated by Universal Camera and reiterated by the D.C. Circuit, these findings should not have been disturbed on .review; when they were supported by sub- stantial evidence. 412 3. Conflict among the Circuits. . The Board’s bargaining order would have been sus- tained in the courts of appeal for at least two other circuits. In Umited Automobile Workers v. National Labor Rela- tions Board and Preston Products, Inc., supra, the D. C. Circuit upheld the Board’s Cumberland Shoe? doctrine; that a clear and unambiguous authorization card may not’ be invalidated absent a representation to. the signatory - employee that the only.purpose of the card is.to secure an election. A similar view. is taken by the First Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. Southbridge Metal Works, Inc., 380 F. 2d 851 (C.A: 1). ‘Under the rulings of > — both courts a representation to an employee that the card will be used to obtain an election does not invalidate it, since . such a use is consistent with the card’s primary function - of obtaining recognition. Both courts agree with the Board that the overt act of signing a clear authorization card is more reliable than the testimony of employees, in the presence of company officials, after the company has com- mitted unfair labor practices. The two circuits also affirm _ the Board’s doctrine that an employee’s thoughts (or after- _thoughts) as to why the signed a card cannot negate the © _ overt act of having signed the card, Joy Silk Mills, Inc. _v. National Labor -Relations Board, 185 F. 2d 732, 743. | (C.A.D.C.) certiorari denied 341 U.S. 914. Since the Board in the instant case found that none of the 101 cards it counted towards the Amalgamated’s majority are tainted by a representation that the card would be used only for an election, its bargaining order would be sustained in . the D.C. and First Circuits. In contrast with the above Circuits, the Fourth Circuit makes its own review of a cold record, ignoring the Board’s expertise in the realities of organizing campaigns, and 1° Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268 (1963), enforced, 351 F.2d 917°(C.A.6).. : 13 determines what employees thought when they signed au- thorization cards. . Only the Fifth Circuit, in Engineers and Fabricators v. National Labor Relations Board, 376 F. 2d ' 482 (C.A. 5), takes a similar view, chiding. the Board for . failing to probe ‘‘into the subjective intent of the chal lenged signers.”’ Recent Siniaions of several. of the other circuits reflect a modified view of the Cumberland Shoe doctrine, e.g. _ National. Labor Relations Board v.-S.E. Nichols Co., supra; ‘ Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,-No. 30844, decided December 12, 1967, 67 LRRM 2017 (C.A. 2); National Labor Rdations Board v. Swan Super Cleaners, Inc., No. 16,952, decided October’ 25, 1967, - 66 LRRM 2385 (C.A. 6); National Labor Relations Board v. Dan Howard Manufacturing Co., No. 16,154, decided January 11, 1968, 67 LRRM 2278 (C.A. 7); Bauer Welding and Metal Halistaaies v. National Labor Relations Board, 358 F. 2d 766 (C.A. 8). The Tenth Circuit appears to con- tinue to follow Cumberland Shoe, see Furr’s, Inc. v. Na- tional Labor Relations Board, 381 F. 2d 562, certiorari ~ - demed, 389 U.S. 840. Several of the foregoing decisions _ explicitly. point out the differences between their views and those of other circuits on the issue of authorization cards, e.g. Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. National Labor Rela- tions Board, supra, 67 LRRM at 2019, 2020 (referring to C.AtD.C.; C.A. 2; and C.A. 6); United Automobile Workers v. National Labor Relations Board and Preston Products, - ‘Inc., supra, 66 LRRM at 2552 and 2555 (referring to C.A. 2 and C.A. 6); National Labor. Relations Board v. Swan Super Cleaners, supra, 66 LRRM at 2392 (referring to C.A. 2); National Labor Relations Board v. Dan Howard Manufacturing Co., supra, 67 LRRM at 2280, 2281 (refer- . ring to C.A.D.C.; C.A. 2; and 6). Thus, the conflict between the Circuit Courts is multi- - plying and requires a final » re solution. "Ta. 7 | ' es The Petitioner, an international union, which represents some 385,000 employees i in almost every state in the United - ‘States, should not be subjected to such a variety of holdings depending upon the circuit in which jurisdiction lies to review or enforce a Board order.'! The vital question whether employees can secure the representation rights , guaranteed them under the Act and whether the Board ’ ean fashion remedies adequate to correct violations of the Act should not be left to jurisdictional happenstance. This Court-should harmonize the conflict that now exists among the circuits. CONCLUSION ~ For the reasons stated, the petition for certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, Jacos SHEINKMAN, Currrorp D: Reznicex, ~ Rosert J. RaBin,- Attorneys for Petitioner, - Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. 15 Union Square West, New York, N.Y. 10003, (212) 255-7800. tf Dated: March 1, 1968. _' 41 Jurisdiction in the instant case in the court below turned upon the location of the parent office of the Employer, and not upon the location of the plant in which the organizing drive took place. > 15 _ APPENDIX “E” Order Denying Petition for Rehearing UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS = 2 For THE Fourtu CrrcuirT No. 11,040. . Vw CrawForp Manuracturine Co., Inc., Petitioner, VS. NationaL Lazor Reations Boarp,. Respondent, — AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WorkKERs or AmeEnica, AFL-CIO, © Intervenor. 4 Vv Upon consideration of the petition of the intervenor, Amaigamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, for a rehearing or a rehearing en banc, the court finds © ‘no grounds asserted therein which were not presented upon the initial argument of this case and considered by the court, and finds no reason justifying the rehearing. 16 Wherefore, it is ordered, with the concurrence of the. _ other members of the court, that ‘the said eam be, and it is tiated denied. . Srwon E. em United States Circuit Judge Apert V. Bryan - United States Circuit Judge Harrison L. WINTER - United States Circuit Judge Filed | Dec 6-1967 ae “Margaret L. Davis Chief Deputy Clerk _A true copy, Teste: Marearet L..Davis. © Chief Deputy Clerk, — U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. . is ~~ ae a % --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1304%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.