Labor Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123 (1961)
Argued:
January 9, 1961
Decided:
January 23, 1961
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Labor Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123 (1961)
National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works
No. 74
Argued January 9, 1961
Decided January 23, 1961
365 U.S. 123
Syllabus
The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board in a representation election solely because its notices of election contained a minor and unconfusing mistake in the employer's corporate name.
274 F.2d 347 reversed, and cause remanded.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
Labor Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123 (1961) National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works No. 74 Argued January 9, 1961 Decided January 23, 1961 365 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board in a representation election solely because its notices of election contained a minor and unconfusing mistake in the employer's corporate name. 274 F.2d 347 reversed, and cause remanded. PER CURIAM. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for the entry of a decree enforcing the Board's order. The refusal of the Court of Appeals to enforce that order because the Boards notices of election contained a minor and unconfusing mistake in the employer's corporate name was plain error. It was well within the Board's province to find, as it did, upon the record before it that this occurrence had not affected the fairness of the representation election, particularly in the absence of any contrary showing Page 365 U. S. 124 by the employer, upon whom the burden of proof rested in this respect. That finding should have been accepted by the Court of Appeals. In the absence of proof by the employer that there has been prejudice to the fairness of the election, such trivial irregularities of administrative procedure do not afford a basis for denying enforcement to an otherwise valid Board order.
Search This Case
