HOTEL EMPLOYEES LOCAL NO. 255, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, ET AL.
v.
LEEDOM, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ET AL.
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 reversed an order that compelled the city to restore a policewoman to her prior duties, finding that the procedure used (rule to show cause) was improper for reviewing the personnel board's amendment of job classifications.
The trial court's order requiring the restoration of the employee to her prior duties was reversed because the proper procedure for challenging the personnel board's amendment of job classifications was not followed.
A policewoman, previously re-employed pursuant to a declaratory decree, was transferred to handling traffic. She contended this new duty violated the …
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.
Per Curiam.
We believe that dismissal of the representation petition on the sole ground of the Board’s "long standing policy not to exercise jurisdiction over the hotel industry” as a class, is contrary to the principles expressed in Office Employes v. Labor Board, 353 U. S. 313, 318-320 (1957). The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Painters' Union, Local 365, AFL-CIO v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 117 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)….D.C. 414, 249 F. 2d 506. Such policy of the N. L. R. B. was held unjustified in 1958, by a decision of the United States Supreme Court reversing the foregoing decisions upon certiorari granted in the case of Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U.S. 99, 79 S.Ct. 150, 3 L.Ed.2d 143. Appellant’s right to picket was in issue when the injunction was granted. The issue being determined adversely to the appellant, the decree became res judicata and appellant has failed to show that since then new right…
-
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1964)…g its flow. Labor Board v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U. S. 224; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127-128; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 123; Labor Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U. S. 601, 608-609; cf. Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99. There are approximately 20,000,000 Negroes in our country.9 Many of them are able to, and do, travel among the States in automobiles. Certainly it would seriously discourage such travel by them if, as evidence before the Congress indicated has been…
-
Hanna Mining Co. v. Dist. 2, Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 382 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1965)…necessary to avoid preemption. While MEBA does not contend that the Board erred in its determination, an abstract difficulty arises from the lack of a statutory channel for judicial review of such a Board decision. Compare Hotel Employees v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99 (equity action to obtain election). However, the usual deference to Board expertise in applying statutory terms to particular facts assures that its decision would in any event be respected in a high percentage of instances, and so diminished a ris…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Off. Employes Int'l Union, Local NO. 11, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 353 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1957)