Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BRASS RAIL RESTAURANT COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (11/09/53)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


November 9, 1953

BRASS RAIL RESTAURANT COMPANY, APPELLANT
v.
PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Appeal, No. 4, May T., 1954, from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, 1952, Commonwealth Docket, No. 158, Equity Docket, No. 2038, in case of Brass Rail Restaurant Company v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, D. W. Smiley, Leo Abernathy and Malcom B. Petrikin. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Gilbert J. Helwig, with him Nicholas Unkovic, Donald B. Heard, Carl F. Chronister and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.

George L. Reed, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him M. Louise Rutherford, Deputy Attorney General and Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, for appellees.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

[ 375 Pa. Page 222]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas, Equity Docket, of Dauphin County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge RICHARDS. Costs on the appellant.

Disposition

The decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas, Equity Docket, of Dauphin County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge RICHARDS. Costs on the appellant.

STATEMENT OF CASE FOOTNOTES

1 Paragraph 6 of the bill of complaint avers that the refusal of the business agent of the union to take the witness stand constituted an admission by the union that it did not claim to represent any of the plaintiff's employes. Paragraph 7 states that the failure of the union to adduce testimony of its own contradicting that of the employer, constituted a like admission and also an admission that no question of representation presently exists. While it is not revealed, by the pleadings here involved, it is a well known fact that the Board does not require that evidence be made of record revealing the names of union members. This policy was adopted to protect employees against unfriendly employers. The Board does permit representatives of the union to exhibit to the examiner, for his personal inspection, membership cards showing union affiliation or applications for membership. However, these are not made a matter of record and at the conclusion of the hearings they are returned to the union. We mention this for the sole purpose of showing that the refusal of the business agent to testify, and the refusal of the union to adduce testimony, was consistent with the established practice and did not in fact constitute admissions.

19531109

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.