# Opposition Brief — Kalamazoo Stationery Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1242%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1947
- **Citation:** 332 U.S. 762

## Text

Page
(EOE SOW so nes Se cha ts osha NR eae 2
NE SNES 6 wick wv innececccancéa hice aces sab eet ee 2
PNR ans cencccnnstcenviussenuscknans ji arhawe Nene 3
Argument__ - niin mtn ge ahem ole ee ee ee 13
Jonelusion _ _ _ _ - sis embeheuhios One kaw eR hpeblanc wanes 20
PIs 5c ccnencvninntavencansuantatunbwabekeeeceiteee 31
AUTHORITIES CITED
Cases:
Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment Relations
Board, 315 U.S. 740_______- to accommodate application
of the National Labor Relations Act to protection
of another public interest which employees have
infringed. Thus, in the Southern Steamship
case, because the impact of preexisting mutiny
laws upon the National Labor Relations Act had
never been considered by Congress, the Board was
held bound to accommodate its policies to the
Congressional objectives embodied in those laws. !
Again, Congress had never had oceasion to con-
sider the impact of age-old policies against violent
seizure of property upon the Act’s protection of
concerted activities. This, therefore, in National
Labor Relations Board vy. Fansteel Corp., 306
U. S. 240, was held to be a task for the Board.
Where, on the other hand, Congress enacts legis-
lation with the National Labor Relations Act in
mind, as it did in the case of the Emergency Price
Control Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 23, 24, 50 U.S. ¢.
App., Supp. V, 901 (a), and the War Labor Dis-
putes Act, the Board is bound to give to the new
legislation the effect intended by Congress. Com-
pare, Matter of American News Co., Inc., 55 N. L.
R. B. 1302, 1308-1309. The refusal of Congress,
after due consideration, to provide in the War
Labor Disputes Act that the Board’s administra-
tion of the National Labor Relations Act should
be affected by the newly adopted policies stands in

ee eee

19

sharp contrast to the express provision to that
effect in the Emergency Price Control Act, and
demonstrates the propriety of the Board’s refusal
to restrict the benefits of the National Labor Re-
lations Act contrary to the intention of Congress.

3. Petitioner’s contention (Pet. 18-19), that
an application of the Michigan State Labor Medi-
ation Act which would deny to employees who
engaged in concerted activities during the cooling-
off period the protection against employer reprisal
accorded under the National Labor Relations Act
would not be in conflict with that Act, is frivolous.
As the court below pointed out (R. 487), “The
Federal Act does not require the giving of notice
of a pending dispute followed by a cooling-off
period.” Clearly the imposition of such a re-
quirement as a condition to the exercise of rights
conferred under the National Act would subtract
from the protection accorded concerted activities
by Congress. In refusing so to apply the Michi-
gan Act, the Board and the court below followed
the controlling decisions of this Court. Hill vy.
Florida, 325 U. S8. 538, 539; Allen-Bradley Local
Vv. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315
U. S. 740, 750-751. Cf. Bethlehem Steel Co. v.
New York State Labor Relations Board, No. 55,
October Term, 1946, decided April 7, 1947;
National Labor Relations Board v. Reed & Prince
Mfg. Co., 118 F. 2a 874, 885-886 (C. CL A. 1),
certiorari denied, 313 U. S. 595. There are no
contrary holdings.

20

4. As the facts set forth in the Statement show
(supra, pp. 8-11), and as the Board found (R.
70), Abraham and Smith did not urge or incite
other employees to strike. Petitioner neither con-
tended nor established before the Board that they
were representatives of other employees. There-
fore, the question urged by petitioner (Pet. 8), in-
sofar as it assumes that Abraham and Smith urged
and incited other employees to strike, and were
representatives of other employees, is not presented.

CONCLUSION

The decision below is clearly correct in all
respects here challenged, and presents no conflict
of decisions. Moreover, since the War Labor
Disputes Act has expired, the question concerning
the applicability of that Act in such circumstances
as here presented has no importance for the
future. The petition for a writ of certiorari
should, therefore, be denied.

« GrorceE T. WasHINGTON,
| Acting Solicitor General.
Y GERHARD P, Van ARKEL,
General Counsel,
Morris P. GLUSHIEN,
Associate General Counsel,
_ Rutu Weyanp,
/ Mozart G. Ratner,
Attorneys,
National Labor Relations Board.

JuLY 1947.

APPENDIX

Section 10 of the War Labor Disputes Act,
(57 Stat. 163, 50 U. S. C. App., Supp. V, 1501,
et seq.) provides as follows:

Except as to offenses committed prior
to such date, the provisions of this
Act * * * shall cease to be effective
at the end of six months following the ter-
mination of hostilities in the present war,
as proclaimed by the President * * *

(21)

©. 8, COVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: i947

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386416_1242%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.