National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc.

act, modifying the tive date processings of the domestic not all first nized impose upon definition so as tax were taxable. upon appli- transactions the normal which history of Sec Secondly legislative exempt. cation the rule of would been me, convinced as tion convinces 602% the ma- guide post to which second Foods Famous Judge Durkee Sullivan Treasury Regulation refer jority is D.C.Ill.1942, F.Supp. Harrison, v. interpreting regulation Section pro Congress 602%. purpose that it was the of processing” “first “the defines domestic com products against tect domestic farm use in first the United States on after specified which petition from oils the effective date act.” the act of But States, by brought from the United outside processing” itself defined “first domestic levying a on their first use within tax States, as “the first use the United pointed Judge States. As Sullivan United manufacture or of article an Philippine cited: "The just out in the case sale, for of re- intended the article with Independence passed on Act had been spect imposed, to which the tax is but does 24th, 1934, (b), March 48 U.S.C.A. § palm not include the use in the man- oil specifically importation, authorizing the plate.” ufacture of tin It will observed duty, designated free of a amount that in statutory definition there is no year ten coconut oil each for suggestion aof reference the effective years, plac precluding Congress thus from date act. seems to me im- that in Therefore, ing import duty thereon. porting regulation goes such a reference (a) the amendments subdivision of Sec beyond rightful interpretation its field of provided 602%, adopted, (1) for tion the realm into of amendment. Conse- pound per two on coconut cents surtax quently regulation think n oilof I that the is invalid origin; pro non-Philippine and (2) application and that its violates the settled payment segregation into vided rule, which, however, too fre- courts Philippine treasury tax entire service, quently pay only lip ambigu- n collected Philippine Trac oil. coconut ities in a revenue must be statute construed processing progress oil tax ing strictly against the Government and that inception (cid:127)statute from Section doubts therein must be resolved in favor .of the Act of 1934 U.S.C.A. Revenue [26 taxpayer. Int.Rev.Acts, page 776], its final enact thereof, ment as the Con Section 602% reports gressional debates and all evidence legislative purpose protecting the same against products American farmers’ brought in from outside the United (cid:127)oils The debates that it was the States. show Congress, enacting intention Section (cid:127)602%, foreign oils the same to extend type processing already tax as had LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NATIONAL upon products American farmers’ levied RAND, * * v. REMINGTON Inc. Act, Agricultural Adjustment by the such tax substitute and to use as a No. 153. * * * (cid:127)protective Congressional tariff. Appeals, Circuit. Court of Second Circuit 2513-2529; Record, pages 2614— Vol. Sept. .2658; 6308-6324-6314-6316-6380.” majority rely for their decision guide posts upon but these do largely two point the conclusion me to seem to majority The first is the reach. which presumed operate statute that a rule contrary intent Unless prospectively willing quite I to concede am declared. applicable to Section rule is that this 602%. however, merely re- should application, Its pro- upon those imposing tax sult statutory definition cessings within place after effec- actually took

9‘2á Counsel, Watts, Gen. Robert Malcolm B. Counsel, Halliday, Gen. Gerhard

F. Asst. Libbin, Arkel, H. P. Van Louis Dor- John Roberts, sey, Attys., Eco- and Harold S. Adviser, D.C., Washington, nomic all petitioner. for Cromwell and Franchot Sullivan & & Schachtel, City (David New all of York counsel), Peck, City, York New W. respondent. HAND, Before AUGUSTUS N. FRANK, CLARK, Judges. Circuit and FRANK, Judge. Circuit proceeding in This is the latest con- Upon troversy back to 1935. which dates National Labor petition of the Relations Board, issued an order on the court June Rand, Inc., 1940, Remington 4, directed agents and to show cause its officers contempt why not be held in it should comply with a decree of this failure 10, March L. on 1938. N. entered R. court 925 Inc., Cir., Rand, date, respondent dismissing 2 such B. 94 F.2d Remington v. 576, necessary 862, denied, 58 U.S. individuals if that to accom- certiorari plish Thereafter, by In 1046, the reinstatement so ordered. this S.Ct. 1540. L.Ed. fashion, 1940, 14, possible, employees as far as will order the court dated June plants be Special appointed “to take reinstated in the their own a proof Master was * * * required move re- towns and will not on the issues be reinstatement, port of elsewhere. But finding court with after such to the thereon fact, law, large em- group recommenda- there will still be conclusions of ployees, composed exclusively disposition This almost tions as to of the issues.” Norwood, Syracuse em- upon ad Middletown case now comes before us Master, ployees, report which who will have to move other interim deals only dispute cities in order reinstatement. the Elmira and to obtain with the yet Consequently, plants. proof has as all No Middletown employees to the maintenance not reinstated taken before the Master as plants. plant respondent’s issues at other be their own towns shall grouped together, plant regardless of the controversy of this have been facts previously employed, which on fully previous opinion. set in our forth single preferential list on the basis of there F.2d 862. The court issued classifications, seniority by to be offered the decree, 10, 1937, modifying March dated positions plant, posi- at the any Elmira amending Board, the order of the any tions still available at plants of the other directing it be enforced. is the This plants after those struck at such charges decree which the Board with Elmira, have been At well reinstated. compliance. 1938, failure of On March elsewhere, employed individuals since Remington Board moved hold Rand May employed who were not on comply contempt for failure to with the must that date dismissed such action decree, court’s and we denied that motion necessary to effectuate such reinstate- prejudice without Thereafter, list ment. shall be drawn complied renewal if the decree had not been upon employees whenever further are need- with on F.2d 195. We plants involved, including ed “unexampled per- remarked at time the plant, preference the Elmira being sistence” residing on the list then sought fend off enforcement of locality employment is avail- which order, Board’s although and said that “we able.” are not (Remington convinced that it Rand) yet disposed conform, is as we should be noted at the that outset impose any penalty will not for the mo- 53(e) (2) Rule of the Federal Rules of ment.” Procedure, Civil 28 following U.S.C.A. sec following “Remedy” provided “ * * * 723c, provides tion that respondent for in our decree1: “The will accept court shall the master’s findings of production be ordered those to reinstate all clearly fact unless erroneous.” While employees maintenance involved who literally solely applies Rule to the District employed 1938, were May 26, on and who Courts, applied think it should here regular not since received sub- especially analogy, conforms with stantially equivalent employment elsewhere. practice general existing before step As the first in carrying out gen- promulgation ap that Rule.2 of We have order, production eral such and mainte- 41, by analogy, practice plied Rule in employees nance shall be reinstated to their Barnett, Cir., In re 2 this court. 124 F.2d classifications, former on the basis of se- 1005, 1013. niority by classifications, positions where in suggested impro- such open any classifications has not are Board now or have priety employed filled in our reference individuals issues to since May 26, case,3 May who Indeed in another employed were not Master. in on 2 2(d) decree, providing In re Central See Railroad of New 1 § for re 21; Jersey, Cir., instatement 2 52 F.2d Fifth Nat. mainte Bank v. employees respondent’s Lyttle, Cir., 361, 363; nance 2 250 F. various v. proviso Armstrong Belding plants, Co., Cir., Bros. contained a & 2 “The de paragraph 728, 729; Slocum, Cir., tailed execution of this In re 297 F. Order shall be in with accordance F.2d 3 Corning prescribed conditions in the section of Glass Works v. B. R. N. L. ” Remedy.’ quoted Decision entitled ‘The The Board’s memorandum 5, negotiations having On broken reference (subsequent order of to our down, mem- ma- a the union men their case), in the orandum in the Board filed stood at instant pro- com- to a chines and refused to until the objecting work this Court pany ques- agreement. posal by employer-respondent that cured the violation of the an enforcing The men were then asked leave compliance tions with an .to They plant peacefully, which did. be referred should decree of this Court day. Master; discharged by were in that all the same letter to a the Board rather than said: “In Board memorandum the was not found that The Master the strike employer proceeding the Board one, dispute was no lawful labor Board If the adversary relation. are in an discharge involved and compliance, proceeded findings of to make decree. He strikers was no violation of the which would nothing statute there dispute ex- further found that weight than greater findings entitle such company isted heard “determined” when the any litigant. other statements of grievances up its mind. and made con- power what has to determine Board clearly erro- findings were The Master’s of this compliance the decree stitutes 2(9) of National Labor neous. Section nothing in the we know Court.” And Act, 152(9), defines Relations a “labor 29U.S.C.A. § which, in Supreme Court decisions of the “any con- dispute” as inclusive of views the Board’s general, suggests that terms, tenure or condi- troversy concerning disregarded.4 subject should be * * “em- An employment tions of Act, 29 ployee” 2(3) is defined I. § whose “any individual 152(3), U.S.C.A. § The Elmira Plant of, or consequence work has ceased as Twenty-seven polishers in respondent’s dispute with, any current labor connection plant discharged Elmira June, practice any unfair labor or because following a strike there. Board claims * * 8(3), U.S.C.A. *.” Section § respondent discharged that the and locked unfair “it be an 158(3), provides that shall employees out union who had ceased work * * *. employer practice labor dispute. labor The facts as fol- are ten- regard hire or discrimination May, : lows Prior to or condi- any term employment ure or had laid off niority. in disregard of se- * * * to encour- employment tion of protested The union and the mat- membership in labor age discourage adjusted. May, 1939, In ter was the com- * * organization Bassett, pany consulted was chairman shop committee, about list of men language The above of the statute these, to be laid and Two of Mathews off. misinterpreta does itself readily not lend Howell, men. were union The com- tion. If the Elmira was a “contro strike request, pany, at Bassett’s substituted terms, versy concerning tenure or condi Maloney Scheisepen, non- names employment,” tions certainly which it men, the latter were less able union because was, indubitably, it then was a “labor dis only and Howell had workers. Mathews pute” meaning within the the of statute. seniority Maloney days’ than and two less agree cannot with Master that We the Scheisepen. agreement The carried was here, dispute there was no labor ly mere- 5, however, Maloney May and out. On dispute because the was “determined” Scheisepen request, reinstated at were their grievances when the heard and and Howell were laid off. and Mathews So up go made its mind. to hold would protested agree- the violation of the Bassett Act, long way emasculating towards the ment, kept men four were on. and all difficult, impos- render it and would all, enough work for and all There any sible, ever to discover state of indus- full time. Bassett continued to ob- worked accurately trial discord could be that, however, Maloney with ject, dispute. labor termed a work, respondent Scheisepen at back issue or May agreement. He real whether not the keeping here its slack, respondent’s firing [feared act of of Mathews and 27 strikers in time contemptuous first to be of the be the laid off. contumacious would Howell pay, specific opinion matter, in that back of ment with issue recent our employee’s potential earnings from 11, 1942, 129 F.2d 967. an Corp. employers Dodge potential employment 4 Phelps B., v. N. other R. L. Board, 845, sent to the but the Su- S.Ct. L.Ed. should U.S. preme no decided that when Court went further. 133 A.L.R. Board directs reinstate- order of the an who had worked motive tion tory. violated. “By your penalized inference ^[*] spondent ing membership in through representatives izations Joint other labor or regard fusals to employees, with, and other mutual * * * Council Office for the ing, in the exercise of discharges organization, court’s organizations, of We think the one ^[*] discharging desist “from restraining ” ^[*] contention that a instance Protective Board of decree decree. The Board claimed that respondent’s ” to hire form or decree of the court. Section affiliated threats plant purposes cease Section 1 work by respondent, of bad faith and discriminatory refusal violated Section or otherwise fact organization engage required respondent rules, Equipment discharges.5 and desist “from discharges on the letter or tenure of form, join or assist labor condition of in during or violence, to work of collective (c) any any in coercing defense you refusing to reinstate such bargain their required that the prior aid concerted plant of their part manner discriminating gives Workers, were Remington Rand discharge today, discriminations right or strike, 1(a) concerted re- rule its rests the District labor employment, employment discrimina- own choos- terminated collectively interfering rise to an bargaining employees, discourag- employees protection employees had been activities a viola- to self- to cease marked mainly or organ- read: way 1(a) 1(c) any re- labor protective ployees right has he take the polishers having gone on strike in a current the strike. respondent ployees ployer’s obligation where the employees, no unfair labor connection with a current ployees have struck and who has committed in the because of an unfair to bargain collectively discontinue his business “employee” extends ship. Relations Act ate the tempted does charged Court haste with which the strikers were dis- your employment, charge of discrimination. In the is under a discharge employer the fact dispute, held It is clear from for the gave place as have not been apply place of strikers only Mackay guilty Thus, employer-employee relationship, provisions. further even individual sever in Where, no to such of the that a strike does not of those duty § retained their of of the strikers. The em- of a purposes 2(3) guilty in the though practice locus Radio an ground effective however, strike of reinstate in employer The immediate unfair labor employment duty reinstate all labor has to be with his As of an penitentiae employees case,7 instant during is not for an inference of itself relieve labor ceased replaced definition may National Labor under the Act practice. reinstated. status as em may today.” The unfair striking Act and its whose em- employees.6 hire others the strike. obliged dispute case, such employer Supreme practice, relation- work occasion hired to striking and at- termin during had a of labor case Nor em- dis- an If or 5 Apparently employees date, two there were such in- who had dur- worked May ing engaged stoppage stances : On the strike respondent’s plant, work Ilion worked extended over the time of about a strike, during stopped work various half-hour to an No hour. one who en- gaged departments, stoppage refused to work with re- work was dis- ” * * * strikers, attempted prevent charged. manager Howland, turned working by plant, from and to evict them them the Middletown testified that the and threats of violence. There is reason for this was that force it would have ” * * * testimony “stopped production. to the that some effect this oc- How- presence supervisory ever, curred in the of em- when he was asked later on wheth- Respondent stoppage ployees. part admitted er of that work on the an of employees participated employee caused, employ- would terminate discharged, replied in, ment, this disturbance were not Howland that this cor- was disciplinary rect, “majority that no action was taken of instances.” 6 against Corp. The reason was Black them. that Diamond S. S. v. N. L. Cir., B., 1938, 875, 879, 2 so have interfered 94 have done would R. to F.2d production. 1938, 579, with certiorari denied 304 U.S. 58 Attorneys stipulated parties 1044, for both 82 S. Ct. L.Ed. 1542. 7 concerning stoppage Mackay of N. L. R. follows work at B. v. Radio & Tele plants graph Co., respondent, 1938, 333, on or “various 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. about June 1938“On or about that 82 L.Ed. 1381.

928 membership. If it practice, The inference of discrimina- right this was unconditional. tory practice, the treatment is when a com- guilty no unfair labor unmistakable parison existed, nevertheless, subject discharge however is made right between the respondent’s only such strikers 27 strikers and attitude to the condition get reinstatement as concerted refusals to work on could seek and towards part replaced during employees already of non-union in its other not been plants. strike.8 discharge Respondent, by immediate its respondent We find violated attempted abnegation strikers our decree9 that the and we now order relationship, guilty employment

of the reinstated, polishers paid their loss be practice. sought It of an unfair labor wages. The matter is referred .to who, 2(3) under discharge strikers § evidence, taking Master and to for the employees and who Act were still its pay. of back determine the net amount apply reinstatement or thus entitled II. very to reinstatement least entitled at the j remained unfilled. where their obs The Middletown Plant part Respondent, The evidence in though sought so, of the case falls it to do first, categories: into two deny could evidence right to reinstatement of a employees polishers. gen- statistical character as erally; second, striking Even if there had specific practice, evidence relative respondent been unfair no labor rely upon alleged contempt instances of alleged right, any, could directed against strikers, employees. individual discharge The statis- because in the case, general tical charts contain evidence discharged instant the strikers were of a nature, being—replaced. include in- being—or without before also evidence as to dividual cases which are not included in summary and immediate dismissal the second category. We shall deal first strikers, respondent while also in general with the statistical evidence. contravention of the National Labor Rela- Act, 1(a) tions was a direct violation of Board’s master chart is a state- § with, “days, weekly ment of the of our decree it interfered hours and earn- restrained, ings employees” striking of all from Middletown collectively plant bargaining “engag- ending July and from from the week 23 to IS, purposes ing activities for the October 1938. The in concerted chart divides the * * * protection. aid or workers into three classifications: mutual the old ” * * * employees (those violated our also who returned to be- (q) work § 1, 1938), discourage employees, union fore the new in that it tended to decree where a lishment of a union. It should noted even The re- .be initially spondent complied unfair involved no strike which decree. Two ’ years prolonged aggravated practice later, is or the Board claimed that labor respondent again practice, fostering employer’s unfair labor an “unaf- applies entirely as where the strike filiated union.” This was an the same rule new having practice, union, no result of an unfair labor connection with is question employer first. is bound to reinstate raised and the was whether required discharge the Board all those hired all strikers a new institute during proceeding, replace them M. H. whether strike. the court could proceed contempt. B., L. R. 15 N. This Ritzwoller Co. v. N. court there “ * * * Cir., (121 page modified, 674): said enforced as F.2d at L.R.B. illegality charged of what 114 F.2d 432. al- has can, question ready course, Again, There be determined. since the upshot power punish proceeding of this court of a as to the new could be no contempt injunction, respond- of its than a decree. more new acts enforcing language decree, brought of our ent would never to account for enough above, hypothesis contumacy forth was broad to for what set existing injunction. respondent’s conduct. The fact bid Indeed it is not alto- gether suppose National conduct also violates fantastic that over totally years might way Relations Act and is thus a in this Labor avoid accountability Act, does not new violation there all for a continued series proceeding wrongs. render a fore new before the For these reasons it necessary. R. B. v. Board N. L. M. seems to us that some remedial measures Sons, Inc., presently Cir., necessary, & Lowenstein are if the are facts case, asserts, In 121 F.2d 673. that this court as the Board and that we should directing proceeding.” had issued a decree the disestab- not remit it to a new disparity in separately, of strikers and the after plain to work (who returned the strikers illus- tends to earnings the actual of the two purport the chart is 1). June and unmistakable. whole, company was less concerned strikers, trate that the as a rein- to those whom it was forced pay than the about less less work and received with its who fell in line state than those employees. categories of other two the brief “back-to-work” scheme. As weight giving The Master erred covers, that span which the chart of time that data. While the Board’s statistical period upon which the Board is the vital effective prepared in its most data not contempt. charge of mainly relies for its form, in the yet on evidence it was based picture get an over-all important to It was to show discrimination record and tended that the strikers who complying with respondent was of how the after returned to work respect decree, we in this the court’s less 1, 1938, less did receive work June pay entirely serviceable. chart was find that the the three the other for than that the Board Accordingly, we conclude period. months’ case, prima and had facie made out respondent that this contended there, we would overrule matter rested Master. inaccurate, but in view generally chart was its facts that the Board checked of the fact testimony company introduced But the respondent gave careful attention with employment Brainerd, personnel and details, this contention correction of to the appears thus: may be summarized manager, which The re substance. to be without company, after this beginning week brevity objected spondent further 1, 1938, reinstated court’s decree of months, ending June span (only three the time rapidly possible, all con- strikers as as was IS, 1938) and the differentiation October in plant policy keeping with sistent strikers, who had classification and, open production; in full if ef- 1, 1938, an work after returned to reinstate strikers joined fort been made to those who had the “back-to-work” they impressed rapidly, have fallen Although the more would movement. Master, workers, point in- objections off where other neither of these seems strikers, derogate validity cluding us to from the of the chart. returned would have suf- earnings.10 quite groups fered losses in rational to treat the two gave following only taking time on train- 10 Brainerd testi time we ing periods mony, examination, make was in those where to on direct before produc- quick disrupt would shift Master: jobs returning endanger say you tion and you or not “Q. Will whether work.” jobs strikers who were at of new did train all workers for the again examination, jobs On cross Brainerd being workers, new for the done follows: you testified as is, these workers? That did train jobs this morn- “Q. Xou made the statement old which at workers do Brainerd, perform? Xes, ing, it, I Mr. as recall A. time could not wrong, you just me, you sir; I it am that Q. we Did do that at once correct did. physically impossible keep rapidly A. As as it or how was done? plant going go in strikers on new and break be. could We could into all jobs? Any rapidly jump, A. than more all one the end October your Xes, preference Q. Is A. from the list did. conclusion? had been removed definitely.” very placed work or a def- had declined job. may Now, redirect, on, of a I sum- Q. inite offer Later Brainerd testified If I understand it correct- marize that? follows: July 15, just ly, Now, thing 1938 and October between one other I “Q. you up, trained old workers which these want to clear and that is: is What job perform difficulty job being new held could not about a man on a workers; you perform production? trained them to turn A. when he cannot out just rap- jobs during everybody along those It affects further keep- idly you consistently people could How Q. than he is. about ing plant going? Xes, group? Q. A. sir. A. It affects them too. If it you say operation group earnings. it would Will whether it affects their keep very definitely physically possible have been had that one case. We case, example. plant going Give us that one Q. to have trained these old men, question jobs any quicker new than A. Where one workers oppor- you May part whether he should be I first did it? A. have the tunity milling department question? (Question read.) in the and we A. Ingraham’s request, No, acceded to Mr. I sir. stated to Becker that Mr.

930 2, 1942, competent, Co., Cir., July Cities Service 2 testimony If is Oil Brainerd’s Master, 937, that, 933, if he 129 held unimpeached, the F.2d where we credible and upon testi- Brainerd, rely circumstances,” his “in it was the not reversible believed could testimony, thus the mony error for Board exclude certain hear- he did. Brainerd’s there, noted, say testimony; which the on, prima case we relied met facie the testimony that Board’s counsel admitted had out. Board made but probably should argued have been admitted effect, contended, in The Board harmless; that was we error hearsay; that testimony is that Brainerd’s agreed argument with that the ex- because adduced, but did could contrary testimony (1) di- cluded was through adduce, not better evidence record, (2) rect which was in the evidence testimony Brainerd’s subordinates testimony was cumulative of other knowledge facts re had first-hand admitted, virtually (3) was and was con- ques lating to the cases of by company’s hearing at the ceded counsel that, therefore, tion; Brainerd’s sec significance. before the to have Board little weight entitled testimony is ondhand findings. support the Master’s and cannot The Board’s statistical evidence these answers: there are To contention testimony and Brainerd’s created an issue Board, proceedings (a) In before finding by the calling of fact for a Master the kind hearsay testimony, is where weight Brain based on the of the evidence. Master, accustomed men are testimony, “on which reasonable if believed erd’s affairs,” rely is admissible prima to may serious outweigh was facie sufficient to findings valid be valid It basis not neces case made the Board. Board; only “it is made sary company, orders in its effort to for the over lawyers’ which is convincing, case, evidence prima produce the facie come aas reasonable required,” testimony evidence “such Brainerd’s subor first-hand like minds accept, though other might mind called them dinates. The Board could have might testimony, so.”11 not do rebut Brainerd’s as witnesses to Master, do so. The did not choose to but it Master, sure, hearing before rely consequently, right on Brain had alleged violations not of concerned testimony, unimpeached in the erd’s court; this Board’s order hut of order presence, believed if Master Master’s the enforcement our was for but order Brainerd. As the Master did believe order; be unreasonable it would the Board’s relied, he testimony made rely so may hearsay hold that the Board accordingly, findings we cannot dis of fact that a Master formulating its order say findings regard those since we cannot alleged appointed to consider violations clearly they are erroneous. may not. enforcing order our personnel officer (b) Brainerd was suggested testimony It that Brainerd’s is supervise duty it was to subordinates whose therefore, and, “stereotyped” entitled to His of work. hear- charge of allocation actions, weight. many But kinds little gossip. testimony say not mere categories. tend to fall into few defenses cases, in automobile collision like v. Defendants (c) is this a case N.L.R.B. Nor group. words, In agreement the entire other Q. to do so. with Mr. Clarkson speed group was in there for measured The man worker? A. Correct.” work- slowest For two weeks fellow month. 11 App. B., raising R. ers, strikers, A. M. v. N. 71 be- I. L. Old Ned 35, explained 175, 29, pay cut, 110 F.2d affirmed I 311 D.C. cause their 50; put 72, 83, 61 85 N. U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. L. not onr it was desire to them Remington Inc., Rand, Cir., in, 2 B. v. could R. man take 862, 873, causing 94 F.2d certiorari de commotion man out without up 58 S.Ct. L. and the nied 304 U.S. make we would 1540; they Edison v. N. Ed. Consolidated Co. lost due to this amount proving B., inefficient, U.S. 59 S.Ct. and we L. R. worker new 126; you say pay L. B. v. Service Wood N. R. Q. that. When their L.Ed. did Co., Cir., 124 F.2d See cut, that due to? A. Sec what was Heel group operation 10(b) Labor of which the en- of the National Rela tion was the Act, 160(b); cf. of work had come out U.S.C.A. § tire amount tions Hearsay did come out due to Evidence Administrative when it being there, Hearings, Fischer, lost & Administra likewise 1 Pike worker earnings. Service, percentage normal 52-1. Q. of their Law tive 48e. group? whole A. Slowed down the Slowed

931 matter, instance, plead contributory representatives, negli- with the often Board’s gence; testimony already respond- in was on issue that before this court and in ent pretty easily applied one such suit is like that could much court to the other; courts, by every merely calling for interpretation. an testimony “stereotyped” jus- cannot Albert Ambrosia was reinstated in tify ignoring it. the same although classification in a differ suggested It is further that we sustain group ent which did the at the same work issue, going on be Master this we will same pay. amount of time and Fifteen opin- counter to what we in our earlier said lay-offs months later there were some in 195, (97 197), ion F.2d reinstatement to group his production due to a decrease in employees: “If this involves disturbance pay. which resulted in cut in a Ambrosia’s business, company’s of the it is doubt un- The Board claims that he have been should fortunate; but, having challenge chosen to job. reinstated to his exact old The Master law, it must But that abide loss.” found Ambrosia been has reinstated particular was saying far from em- his former classification and recommended ployees be their same should restored to that the claim be dismissed. jobs promptness with such that such resto- The Master’s recommendation as to Am- would in ration result a loss to the em- rejected brosia is view his misinter- ployees as a whole. pretation of our decree. We award Ambro- specific 2. We shall now deal with the pay wages, sia back for loss of $83.00 claims of the Board on behalf of in- various order that he be reinstated his exact old employees. dividual job original group. in his A number these individual cases Piasecki, Sigmund the time at of the question about the revolved of whether the milling uppers rear strike was cents at 59 an required striking employees decree be 22, He hour. reinstated 1938 jobs. reinstated their exact old milling and did bench work at 58 cents “Remedy” provided that “such hour and then milled rear at cones employees and maintenance be rein shall cents an hour. He returned to his exact * *” stated to their former classifications. October, 1938, job following old re- a misinterpreted The Master our decree by quest job the Board. Meanwhile that respect. The decree this was not satisfied by had been old _ held who had merely by reinstatement to former classifi during than he earned more did $53.00 interpretation contrary cations. Such to period. The claim is that he should have decree, the clear intent of the which was job been his old when reinstated or directed at a quo. restoration of the status July by The various details of the Board’s “Reme The Master found that he had been rein- dy” end, designed were to this and not as job a stated to at former classification sweep on the limitation broad de wage gave him at least the same Therefore, provision cree. for restora possibilities earning and recommended that tion strikers same “classification” be dismissed. We reverse the claim enable them retain the same eco Master’s recommendation allow Pia- conditions as before the That strike. nomic pay, secki back which is loss he $53.00 job a return to workman’s former originally the failure sustained from to re- contemplated the decree was further job. instate him his exact old opinions made manifest the two Foster, strike, at the time prior case, did the citing course of this court freeing-up job Department. Riveting opinions, order.12 In both these Board’s July job reinstated on He was reinstatement we referred to to “former” or department in the his classification same jobs. “old” per job rate hour. old at the same His respondent claims to have relied on a who, Savory from done to Octo- representative made statement of the more had hours of work and ber earned Board, respondent’s agreeing interpre- although, approximately more after $44.00 decree. But the views tation time, increased Foster’s hours both representatives expressly stat- Board’s the same of time. amount received purely personal be ed and so cannot be The Master found binding on the Foster held to Board. should joba at the time his classification and be noted reinstated conference 871; Id., Cir., 1938. 97 F.2d 195. 196. Remington Rand, Cir., 94 F.2d N. L. R. B. v. I , c n . employees, subject cer- Mas- and maintenance to dismissed the reverse claim. We duty, Clearly, tain with- findings loss conditions. such a ter’s and award $44.00 decree, in owed to the terms wages to Foster. Reneson and Moore. inspector Mae of ribbon- Romegialli, an A offering classi- letter was sent spools, July to her reinstatement was reinstated hourly August appear to for an in- Moore he failed to fication at the same rate. On but job. he spool company terview assumed that she was returned to rejected a done the offer. The letter was correct- Meanwhile her work had been ly duly more addressed mailed tes- employee earned but Moore new who had $19.50 period. tified that he never it. during than she the same had received had been The Master that she found offering Reneson received a letter him properly reinstated her classification. to signified reinstatement. He his desire for findings award We reverse the Master’s re-employment company sent to which wages. Romegialli for loss of $19.50 report asking him to to a letter him work at subsequent having a date. Reneson denies determination Ten cases involved a Subsequently received this letter. received sub had of whether up Board took the matter and Reneson was employment stantially elsewhere. equivalent wages is reinstated. The claim for loss of Hubner, a fact that The Master as found 19, 1939, February from when he received and Whitemore Muskatallo was reinstated. The Master found that the employment, substantially equivalent such Rene- letter was mailed Reneson and that rein entitled to were not therefore it, company son had “but never received Master’s with the In accordance statement. recommendation, way sending in normal sum- acted a in its claims we dismiss the mons to return to work mail.” three men. made behalf these that, ordinary It is well settled inter- Lu fact that Master found as course, conditioning in the absence cir- Gioiella, Dumais, Geary, Myjack, ciano trade, cumstances, a custom of the Groeper received sub and Bellmore had not is the risk of communication on the loss employment. stantially equivalent Accord of communica- one who selects means six of these ingly reinstatement order we tion. This should be. already they been have not employees where subject duty. positive a It here was following awards reinstated and make duty. That fail- discharge failed to Gioiella, wages: $131.- Luciano for loss ure was a loss in mails occasioned Dumais, $228.00; 00; Patrick William excuse, respondent for the is no selected $48.80; Myjack, $224.64; Geary, Rudolf the mails as its method communication. Bellmore, $381.47; Joseph Groeper, Max knowledge common while It $132.40. safe, customarily are occasion- mails letters Kulas, Stanley In the case of Here, duty, ally discharging are lost. re Kulas had finding was that Master’s respondent the risk must bear substantially employment equivalent ceived part such failure on the of the mails. clearly errone finding is This elsewhere. just could as well have selected a more ous, fact that the value view of the means, g., registered certain e. letter with considerably diminished wages was Kulas’ receipt, thereby providing check return job. commuting his new by the cost against any such as occurred misadventure mile from approximately one His home two cases. these to travel plant but he had Middletown $347.15, Accordingly, we award Reneson Britain, daily from New 32 miles Moore, $826.00, wages their net loss employment. Conn., found new he already where by respondent’s properly failure occasioned reinstated, having Kulas promptly reinstate them in accord- for the net made whole he should be think ance with our decree. through respond he incurred pecuniary loss promptly to rein properly and failure ent’s Department: Aligning Weg- him, the matter remand and we state aligners were two lowski and Harris of such amount. for determination Master jobs regular aligners. were reinstated they fully were claims that The Board Moore: These Reneson and in that one of them should have identical, present reinstated cases, though not two Garde, repairman in job of the De- had the of the court The decree problems. similar be removed Garde could not partment. respondent duty on positive imposed employee hired before the as he reinstatement make offers Weglowski job strike. It is sweeping also claimed that transferred to which against cleaning and Harris were discriminated involved lavatories in Assem- they “touch-up” bling Department were job, pay. the same Gioiella accept job. this was newa classification of addi- refused to new Board inspection tional prob- discriminatory discharge. claims ably training. not fitted Master without more found no discrimination and we finding respect. affirm his in this The Master Weglowski found and that duly Harris were reinstated we affirm and Gioiella, and Wamester John Jac that finding. obson : three hired as These were workers Ginty Rullman Haglund, and and Cone days “learners” the strike. a few before aligners were discharged who were for in- Respondent place had no for learners on competence; uphold the findings Master’s decree, July and, pursuant court’s respondent pursuant and to his recom- placed them preferred on the list and of mendation, discharge on claim be- jobs fered them several months later. half of these four men. respondent Board claimed that have should jobs reinstated Assembly given them and them Department: Palumbo employees new Magnano succeeded after be groups and worked 2-A in 2 and ing employees learners. The there which had 26 Master was between them. At found no strike, disagree. discrimination. We There time of the an in- Palumbo was was no spector reinstating reason for and them. job was reinstated to his old If July 15, position strike-breakers a to be Magnano typesetter were was a put assembly jobs period on and after short was reinstated on a 1938. The training, employees these must employees, Board claims then have of the 26 new eight been. We order that or nine Gioiella and getting new were workers Jacobsoni reinstated, and more work than and award Gioiella these men $40.41 two wages. respondent’s policy this was loss $2.47 result Jacobson loss, seniority Wamester admitted he no ignoring laying suffered off and therefore during slack we affirm the find times. Master’s ings as to him. The Master found no discrimination. Magnano many Palumbo and got as hours strike, At the time of Oehmen of work as the others. We affirm the Mas- working job was the shift in the Assem finding ter’s Magnano Palumbo had bly Department group previ 2. He had fully reinstated. ously job was worked on bell rein job pay. stated to that at the The man same Barry, strike, at the time of the job on bell employee was an old was carriage-fitter, working regular on during had returned strike. The Board large carriages. When he was rein wages withdrew its in claim for but loss of stated, large carriages work on was that he have been reinstated sisted should being by Tosto, done who was an old em job. to his exact old The Master dismissed ployee. months, After two or three a com ground the claim on the had that Oehmen plaint Barry was made and was given that been reinstated to his old classification. meantime, work. In Barry had been While Board’s contention that Oehmen regular working on carriages but time have been returned exact should to his old pay though were the same it had in correct, job is inasmuch as there was no re working large carriages. cluded on A new Oehmen, damage sultant it is difficult to being machine—Model 17—was manufac see that there was discrimination. We tured job. and Tosto was broken on that findings. the Master’s affirm The Board claims work should Barry. gone have The Master found no Department: Inspection Final showing of discrimination in selection Donohue, Romegialli Emilio and Grimm Tosto, job. Tosto for the Model inspectors the time final were fact, greater seniority Barry. than We vacancy in that de There was no strike. partment therefore dismiss this claim. July on and all of the inspectors employees. old then final Luciano Gioiella reinstated to placed preferential on the job year The three were his old for one worked jobs they at Elmira which list and offered sweeping job then was transferred to 1938,they fall In the were re lifting. refused. which involved some Several jobs. Three to their old instated final later due fact he months to the inspectors while old em- on physically lifting, do the suited to he 93á that there ployees, jobs finding at the time of We affirm Master’s had had other they was This no discrimination here. the strike. The Board claims that jobs specialized work- requiring their new mechanism should have been removed and all men, and, Donohue, besides, Grimm. were not sufficient given Romegialli there jobs at to make Middletown on this model way up inspectors Final their worked preferential dent list. through usual- line and were ly the line when jobs transferred to other on Department: Antoinette Rebuilt to do. inspecting there for them her exact Lombardi reinstated to was not right during to work the slack job classifica- old rather to her former the final was thus an incident line pay tion her which would hard inspector’s job. Consequently, daily earnings. same We affirm see reinstate- how could be denied claim be that the Master’s recommendation being done long ment as was work there as dismissed. employed since by on the line individuals Zwyno, Grinding Department: at May 26, 1936. strike, foot-press the on time of the ran He recom- adopted The Master this view. platen-rolls spent springs and time on some compensation allowed for mended that be platen-roll job tapes, girl’s job. and The three these the difference between what 15. prior July was He moved to Elmira inspec- final workers would have earned as job was at Elmira and refused. offered a earn at they what in fact tors and did July working springs on girl On was jobs. other tapes, company’s in and the evidence and Master’s recommendation We affirm the place open Zwyno dicates that was for no Donohue, Romegialli be re- and Grimm he was on that date October when until Assembly Line if there are instated in the job in assigned to a returned to and work inspectorships. There is no final vacant no Department. the Raw Stores whereby can be a there data the record July 15 claims that on there The Board these the amounts due determination of depart- were three new male workers in the workers, refer employees we line and Zwyno been rein- ment and that should have deter- such matter to the Master for the jobs. to one these The Master stated mination. recommended that the claim be dismissed. Zwy- finding reverse the Master’s We Sub-Assembly Department: Jennie certainly no. He was entitled to one maternity leave four or Myjack obtained a jobs of new men were re- of the the who May 1938. She was five before months 15, 1938, days July tired ten after four and work, could return when she advised Zwyno $115, accordingly the we award was She not job be available. her would wages. net amount of his loss in February 1939. Her reinstated until strike, Fortin, time the at the worked a strike job done old meanwhile Department and Turret Lathe “did the respondent’s defense was that breaker. The jobs and all over the all other worked relationship had employment terminated the place.” job The was moved Elmira and There was tes her leave. she took when that he should have been the claims Board com was the timony that it in the record jobs three new given of the held the one pany’s policy reinstate plant, referred workers at the Middletown The Master job available. became when a case, supra. Zwyno’s into relationship hav employment found strike, of the the time

ing been terminated at discrimination. Master found no We The reinstate required to Fortin, Zwyno, not like should have think that right Thay- retained she new men. jobs her. Whether had one any arrangement with man, er, work return to should have been removed a new fact, pure question of Fortin, operated company was a had a turret-lathe finding. Master’s Thayer, substituted. We order that we affirm like paid his net to the date of his be loss Fortin also claims under Board job, his old which sum the reinstatement preferen employees on heading found to be Board $111.76. chance to have been list should tial Inspection Department: Loss, machine which new Model 17—a on work Champion, at time of the Maher time strike. being made at the inspect Type in the strike, assigned to except in Elmira for was manufactured They were Department. reinstated Action made at Middle- which was carriage that, prior The claim is after strike. town. strike, they completed their done when the work found that Master type-action department, work job in the was a different machines be other de- would transferred work in there evidence to substantiate was no partments. policy was Re- After the strike this reinstatement claim earlier question three em- Department. purely followed in the case these This is built ployees, findings fact, but was others. adopt the Master’s own. our The Master found no discrimination. testimony conflicting here and we re and Whalen were Antonovitz affirm findings. the Master’s Department instated the Rebuilt there Japan De was no work available Japan Department: Mastergeorge, partment. no The Master found discrim strike, job at the time of the had the had the claims ination recommended framing paneling oro two for one find We affirm the Master’s dismissed. weeks, previously having learner. been a ings. her, opening Because there was no she was not She .reinstated on Mandeville, Milling Department: placed preferred list and offered an strike, car- straightened time of job, which Elmira pany’s she refused. com riage-ends rough. five Four or opening evidence is that there was part spent previously months he August 22, 1938, for her until at time which straightening carriage-ends. time finished given job type-action was she de 15, July On latter he was reinstated to the partment. March, 1939, In there was an job. rough carriage-ends job The was be- opening Japan Department in the she employee ing by done old had re- an who placed was there. All in the the workers The Master during turned the strike. Japan Department, 15, on March were old that the claim dismissed. recommended employees, except Riggott, whose work was attempt comply plainly was There not the Mastergeorge’s. same as compliance with the decree here and a fair The Mastergeorge Board claimed that far reinstated so as Mandeville was July should have been reinstated on to job previously he had done. affirm the We Riggott’s job jobs by or one of held findings. Master’s employees. new Master found The that Casey’s job old was available not there was no Mastergeorge evidence that job July cut a full-time on due to a performed any jobs could have of these in production. She familiar with ma was accordingly dismissed the claim. We affirm jobs department chine in the and was as finding respect. Master’s in this signed to one. The Master found no dis accordingly crimination and we dismiss the Kelley was July not reinstated 15, 1938, claim. although job there was a available. company’s The doctor felt that he awas Department: Fields, at Raw Stores compensation although risk not he did re strike, the time of worked in stock port physically him unfit for work. The Dougherty, room and supplies. disbursed Kelley that undoubtedly Master found was him, supplies. who worked with received fit for work and Kelley recommended that They together Dougher went on strike be allowed wages loss of result $250.00 ty joined the back-to-work movement dur ing by from failure to July reinstate him During ing strike. slack 15, adopt 1938. We findings. the Master’s 1938, July Dougherty after worked more company alleged than The Fields. that Murphy Carta and hand-scrap did receiving, regardless man had to have a ing carriage-ends. job sup was Their The Board claimed Dough slack. that planted by machinery by newly run hired erty been laid should have off Fields They put girls. were later in the Rebuilt jobs during should have been both Department, assembling rebuilt machines. slack, and was not properly hence Fields they claim is that should have been that, precedent cites as reinstated. jobs though returned to old they their even depression during Dougherty performed being were now by girls work jobs and the had been laid off two done machines, and ing also should have ground Fields alone. Master found no jobs assigned been in the Rebuilt De discrimination, for a claim of and we dis earlier, partment company since the recog the claim. miss ability depart nized their to work in that by giving jobs them August Department: ment there in Tool Huber was re job. 1938. stored his exact old The Master in certain comply to to decree have with the court’s found, fact, not he did that cases, non-compliance pur- employees and such was share his work with the new poseful, good were af- that its intentions We there discrimination. that was no that it in accordingly we should not hold findings. firm the Master’s contempt. This untenable. contention is Mag- Department: Type-Action question whether put nano, were Benashski Scanlon and suffered harm because of a violation occupied jobs back their old decree; those who be made have should during work who returned workers regardless whole. is so sub- This July prior 1938. strike and And, jective respondent. intent of even and we discrimination Master found no alone, it were true taken conduct accept findings. since company the enforcement Walsh Perina Type Department: decree was entered was such that it could classifica job in her old to a was returned non-compliance purely be said than less pay The rate of “technical,” tion. not, judging we could she job, evidence although the conduct, old disregard history the earlier if she amount the same have made could controversy—the this fact that the An production. get able to out had been previous dispute in the course has of this to work returned employee old adjudged violator of the National job. She old 1938, had her prior Board, Labor Relations Act and had re the foreman complained to attempted to fend off enforcement November job in October turned per- court of the Board’s order with that she should claimed The Board us, opin- sistence as to cause ion, our earlier job on have been returned to sharply upon it. remark rather no discrimination Master found 1938. The IV. claim. accordingly dismiss The order and the court’s decree Board’s Nineteen time-clerks Time-Clerks: specificity those both with reasonable stated departments. various in the were stationed respondent do affimative- acts which was to produc they were claims The Board ly, to refrain from and those which it was should, employees and maintenance tion and Respondent the mandate doing. has violated July 15. by therefore, reinstated have been twenty-seven court in the cases of the of this respond because They were not reinstated Ambrosia, polishers, Sig- Elmira Albert production and regard them as not ent did Piasecki, Foster, mund Ro- Russell Mae were employees. Their duties maintenance Dumais, megialli, Gioiella, Luciano William worked, figure the time to to record Geary, Myjack, Patrick Max Rudolf accounting report to the and amounts due Kulas, Groeper, Joseph Bellmore, Stanley They tools department. also distributed Reneson, Moore, Chester Gi- John various James supplies to the men in and Donohue, oiella, Jacobson, Helen Florence worked, departments unlike in which Grimm, Romegialli, Fred Emilio clerks, pay John on the they were carried other Zwyno, Fortin, Reginald Kelley Roland and production and maintenance de rolls of time-clerks, and, accordingly, the nineteen charged partments, pay being their to over contempt contempt. find we it in The shall were The Master found these head. by purged making be the ordered restora- maintenance production not by payment compensatory tions and to reinstatement. and hence not entitled above, fines the amounts indicated to findings this re We think the Master’s clearly in spect remedy erroneous. To all wages the losses of incurred as a working in purposes, contemptuous time-clerks tents and of the acts. result department, maintenance report is, Master’s as we have in- should, They that unit. were members therefore, dicated, report, only an interim covering have been reinstated respondent’s plants. The balance two of that, Accordingly, we order case, respondent’s plants, to other possible, they now rein should be where proceed expedition. him should before stated, matter is referred to now, during hearings future If before testimony to determine further Master for Master, important differences arise be- wages. net loss in parties meaning to the tween our III. herein, will be desirable if the orders contended, respondent promptly has before parties ar come this court for precisely interpretations if it had of those orders. even failed guendo, long familiar out usually with the drawn Mas costs, including case, past history particular of the stenog compensation, ter’s witnesses’ occasionally disposed training are fees, between raphers’ divided are to be background policy doubt the itself. public to respond parties, borne be two-thirds Giannasca, Cir., N. L. R. 756, 759, F.2d B. v. award Board. We ent and one-third 560; Corning 135 A.L.R. Glass Respondent $6,000. the Master a fee of is Cir., B., Works v. N. L. R. 129 F.2d 967. Labor the National to make available Every case I see me the more but shows payroll and personnel, its Relations Board social that this merely course is not extraordi- Ilion, Syra security for its records narily expensive money, of time and but is York, for the Elmira, plants New cuse and stultifying carrying us in out our re- periods May 26, May 1 to from law, sponsibilities under the as it be order, must this the date of unsatisfactory It to the master himself. analysis the full purposes determine lawyer reproach distinguished is no respondent’s extent, any, failure to faithfully already who has worked most Finally, plants. we order comply those at years this our case post for more than two respondent notices for point anomaly behest to out and to days plant, sixty throughout its this consecutive state that fault method, is in the employees that it has been held advising in trying individuals work it. contempt. under agency Board itself be should Let the Board submit order ac- report take and the evidence to as to us days’ foregoing, upon ten cordance with the decrees; observance our we respondent. notice to require should event are duty it.1 But in no CLARK, justified Judge (concurring Circuit we our repudiating result). responsibility own the extent of commit- ting adjudication important facts to I With hesitation concur in the re- some just nominee of ours though he were represents reached herein. a more sult a court of first instance. At he should most forthright legislative vindication only adviser; duty considered our policy toas labor relations than do the re- adjudication must remain with us. master; port and recommendations of the (in If proceedings and since this had permitted court we ourselves more participate) which I did not referred extensive duty, has review which I think is our unwise, master, perhaps might to a the issues it is well have made findings, different unseemly, or to required at reverse him more at least least have further testimony, sure, however, respondent’s than I am is done herein. or delay as to failure in re rule—applied “clearly hiring large that the erroneous” so of its number former em ployees. in the district do find findings court to fact We error the of of a master’s disregard sitting court master of the showing district in substance Board’s chart against men; a court of first instance discrimination on issues es- these then judicial—has sentially dissipate proper applica- no rather we the of ruling effect our persuasive tion holding proof to this last and most task this delicate of rebutted supporting all in presently public by stereotyped the of Brainerd, settled answer2 policy (not speak personnel manager, of our that the men own dignity) could not quickly in this most difficult and troubled socio- retrained respondent’s for work, already I economic field. have so changed commented much had it its charac upon anomaly taking finally of intervening months, de- ter two or three part proceeding cisive out of ex- disrupt and that their reinstatement would pert process for it committing production. already said, however, created hadWe lawyer court, who, friends of page it 197 of 97 F.2d: “If this involves distinguished, specially however are not company’s business, disturbance of it is task, necessarily but, are unfortunate; trained for the un- doubt having chosen tiously. That the Board was reluctant act is This not a matter where its finding's binding us; case under indeed, another different circum- are on Moreover, upon report not decisive stances here. the effect feared us of a I Board, conceive be matter in which of examiner or we could inescapable duty dispense the Board owes an both with either or both and order legislature only reported. the court to be evidence policy. 2 Which, course, suggests framed The Board has fa- of lack of through separate cilities trial tak- examiners of careful consideration of each testimony ing expedi- promptly case. Asst, Atty. Maryhelen Sp. Wigle, the loss.” law, challenge it must abide Atty. Clark, (Samuel Jr., Gen. Asst. has O. the Board does me that It not seem to Monarch, Gen., Key Louis Sewall respondent’s any obligation up hunt J. n Sp. Gen., Atty. and Summerfield Assts. to on evidence foremen for more direct Kan., Atty., Topeka, Alexander, S. U. altogether S. issue; implies suggestion brief), appellant. on the for upon the heavy proof too a burden actually light the evidence Board. In the O’Keefe, Root, Karl Maurice P. W. pay back award of I believe an presented, Atchison, Kan., Foulks, C. all John in F. among the workmen apportioned appellees. the brief for B., Cir., R. v. N. L. Co. W. Woolworth HUXMAN, PHILLIPS, Before justified, have been would 121 F.2d MURRAH, Judges. Circuit result, preferred and should close adherence rather than such HUXMAN, Judge. Circuit is had. report as master’s Ramsay 23, 1934, May W. On Robert testate, Atchison Coun- died a resident of duly pro- Kansas, ty, where his estate return, tax In the federal estate bated. an item the trustees took a deduction $13,000 Court the Probate allowed during the support the widow The item of administration. assessment an additional disallowed and paid under $1,490.91 was made. RAMSAY et al. v. UNITED STATES protest was instituted and this action No. the United States the District Court of same. to recover the the District of Kansas- Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Court of Circuit has government prevailed and Plaintiffs 12, 1942. Oct. appealed. here, applicable 303(a) As far Sec. (1) of the Revenue Act of 1926 as amend- by Sec. 805 of the Revenue Act of ed Int.Rev. U.S.C.A. 47 Stat. Acts, 232, provides p. for a deduction of an estate of such gross from the value actually reasonably required and amounts the es- expended during the settlement of dependent support those tate for the allowed upon as are the deceased jurisdiction under which laws being administered. estate of the General Statutes of 22-511 Sec. Kansas, 1935, deals with allowances to per- children out of the widow minor Sub- property of a decedent’s estate. sonal provide setting aside sections children certain and minor the widow property of the deceased. personal prop- provide if the value of They person, erty than each is less $125.00 paid may be either in cash the difference 3 sets aside property. Subsection other personal prop- articles of additional certain minor children of a erty to a widow provides that if these farmer. deceased property are worth less additional items paid $250, shall be difference than stat- property. Under the cash or other Kansas, most the widow could utes of in cash is $375.00. be allowed

Case Details

Case Name: National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Sep 29, 1942

Citation: 130 F.2d 919

Docket Number: 153

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.