NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE TRAMA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the board's order should be enforced except for the back pay provisions.
Two unions created a difficult situation for Trama, a boat operator, in 1957. The board initially declined jurisdiction but later asserted it and orde…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Back Pay Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The position of two unions competing for the allegiance of the fishermen of this single boat operator, Trama, forced the jaws of a vice on him in 1957. Pleading for help and just trying to live, he sought the help of the board. The board declined jurisdiction.
In 1957, he made a choice. In 1959 the board decided it had jurisdiction to pursue him for the wrong choice. Now it would have us enforce an order to desist from the unfair labor practices found and to make certain restitution to six dischai’ged employees.
The boax-d did excuse Trama from the back pay provisions from March 21, 1958, to February 27, 1959, the period during which the board’s then current policies precluded exercise of its jurisdiction. It determined in its discretion that it would best effect the policies of the act to suspend respondent’s back pay obligation for the period in question.
When the board to a large extent created Trama’s problem, we think its reasoning requires that all back pay be suspended.
The proposed order of the board will be enforced except as to back pay.