*1 bonds, res; the con- (1) suits follow: trust (6) as the City accepted the the ma- 5%-, res; after tract rate turity therefore trust est; (7) is bonds will bear interest right to inter- Chase at (8) the Chase interest on has a 5% principal al- interest; judgment the (9) entitled in- Chase is 5%; the (2) so as to bear interest at terest at the rate of 5%. no coupons, there is amount due on the judgment Therefore the District the is specified there but instead contract rate a direct reversed, is is to a Court Chase entitled * * promise “pay bearer the declaratory judgment to the effect that the ” * * * spec- Twenty-five at a dollars the against lease is valid and enforceable parties date, of inter- therefore rate ified the liability: following in the order of maturity coupons is est the after on 6% (1) City the and the as successor trustee judgment for on and the rate of the interest property; (2) Citizens Gas. trust unpaid coupons also the overdue and is 6%. judg- Chase also entitled to a coercive is unpaid interest ment and overdue for the when it disagree with Chase interest coupons, judgment include the of interest is no rate contends that there specified maturity coupons from at both on the describing coupons. In the on 5% judgment from judgment and on the fol- coupons above, the Chase omits the Moreover, this entry co- satisfaction. “being lowing six significant words: the against judgment is enforceable ercive interest on First Consolidated months’ its following of liabil- parties No. Mortgage Five Per Gold Bond Cent. trustee and ity: City successor (1) the as the face of bond -.” Moreover each Gas; and property; (2) Citizens trust the Indianapolis “The Gas as follows: reads Company * * * * * Indianapolis District Court Gas. The (3) promises * * * proceed in is directed to accord principal] with interest [the * * * so ordered. opinion. It is percent, per rate of five at the * * *; say, that is to on the annum * * * day April and of October first presentation upon and surrender of coupons respectively.” (The the annexed contribution.) We conclude italics is our unpaid coupons interest bear in- that the (the rate) contract terest 5% maturity judgment and that date of unpaid judgment for the overdue and BOARD LABOR RELATIONS NATIONAL coupons bears interest at until also 5% & CHEMICAL POTASH v. AMERICAN satisfied. the same is CHEMICAL (INDEPENDENT CORPORATION Intervenor). UNION, WO RKERS Citizens Liability Gas. We complete argument No. 8681. have considered made counsel for Gas and con Citizens Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Court clude without further discussion that its 27, 1940. liability under lease continues but that secondary liability its is liability City as successor trustee and to the liability property. trust We have indemnity also concluded that the contract City running executed in favor Gas, valid of Citizens In effective. passing it is to noted that the lease ob ligation payment carries as on rental of the the bonds In interest dianapolis Gas. Conclusions. Our conclusions in this 99-year (1) valid; follow: lease is case (2) assignment of the lease did re- Gas obligations lieve Citizens lessee; from its as indemnity (3) the contract is ef- fective; (4) City the lease binds the property; successor trustee and the trust (5) part leasehold interest
«33 27, 1938, our orders of National Labor the case of Ameri- Relations Board v. can Corporation, Potash & as set Cir., forth reported in our in 9 F.2d sup- Attached are *3 porting affidavits. cause An to show was answered, joining issued and Potash issue with allegations contuma- of its conduct, cious to are attached its which charged affidavits. The to vio- orders lated commanded Potash to: Take following affirmative ac- “2. tion which the Board finds effectuate policies of the Act: * * * “a. Wright Offer to Earl immediate and full reinstate- [and others] ment, respectively, posi- to their former tions, prejudice seniority without to their or other rights privileges; “b. Make Wright whole said Earl * * * for any losses of [and others] pay they have by suffered reason of their discharge and L. any Ivers for loss of J. pay he has suffered reason of his demo- by tion, payment, by respectively, of a sum of money equal to that each which nor- would mally wages have earned during period discharge, from the date of his respect Ivers, with to L. from date J. demotion, his to date offer such reinstatement, less the amount which each has period;” earned during that to cease and desist: mitted American tion, geles, Cal., for intervenor. filed HEALY, Neary, Washington, Watts, National Labor Relations Halliday, Perkins, The National Labor Relations Board John Before DENMAN, Gibson, Charles a hereafter called Cal., certain Associate K. and A. Norman Circuit Asst. DENMAN, STEPHENS, Potash and Fahy, Dunn & for Hagopian, Henry D. acts in respondent. Gen. C., Judges. alleging Gen. Gen. B. for violation Counsel, Crutcher, Counsel, Ely, Judge. Counsel, of San Potash, petitioner. that Somers, Attys., all Board, of Los An- of three Richard Malcolm F. respondent Francisco, Robert B. J. Corpora- all of Stuart com- A. (cid:127)for such a mandate arises from the statute’s poses bonus their Potash to avoid our order by resigning offered appears ing the men to their obeyed by an unconditional of Potash show that and second, ployees, or Allied Chemical Workers’ employees.” interfering any The “1_ “c. to Allied b, first, their back other labor right any From [*] duty their, that 12]^ (a) [*] make Chemical Workers’ to reinstatement. other labor to Act, of an in any [*] back With percent reinstate th^e pay. positions them the administration of 29 organization unemployed contributing employer manner U.S.C.A. 151 to effectuate the they if they On the whole, organization specific before determin- to our orders 2a had never been offer Association, employees and, dominating an additional would the affidavits § to reinstate Association, contrary, of its em- men were support provision restore et seq. enable pur- its or or to wages. Congress a mere said by his effectuated back What purpose is That employee disadvantage the unem- about the private of a giving price. applies bargaining employer1 for a a ployed man be surrendered create a discharged not to purpose workman. primary fortiori employees. It discharged remedy respect particular ne With employees’right, declared safeguard gotiations wages' settlement of or self-organize Act, in section of discharged em between Potash and the organization, labor join existing an ployees, hear made motion at the Potash matter costly only it not making ing for the enforcement of the Board’s exercising discharge men orders court hear deter depriving him also right, that but paid propriety mine its before it the men his ridding prestige have for he *4 agreed the amounts. heldWe that this oppose his at- those organization of who compliance or was a matter of the with organize. to tempt their so destroy to ders the Board was to make seeking ef in a con- left not to be The part through our not fective decree and a seek- associates say to like-minded dition to of proceeding the to secure that order. Act, “It the purposes of to the ing defeat Labor Relations Board Ameri National can Potash v. who money, no man pot of but a cost me Cir., Corp., 98 & 9 union ever forming a opposed me in has 488, contemplates Act F.2d 492. The this plant again.” in my worked cognizance will a matter of the Board’s 10(c) under section of the Act since the spirit the be blind to would One require may Board Potash make re “to life in his his dominates creative which ports showing from time time the ex to destructive ef to realize company not the complied tent to which it has or the with place of his the of the loss on laborer fect der.” has belong” in organization. “Not to However, poignant misery that O’Neil making Potash relied on cases all the it Iiairy Ape. tragedy impossible of the it say that its not shown in his to motion was to means more an in If job good granted of a much faith. The loss would his opened up than the of the facts as American iaborer pay absence to the method in deeper procured fear that There the which was check. the settlement from of family making his become one a the men. The of a he such motion and jobless indi class of and an absence permanent the demonstrates of contumacious the Board at Cf. National Labor Relations Board the or attitude toward that court gent. v. Motors, Inc., Cir., 9 de Sterling that, though Electric hence time. feel the 7,May 1940,112F.2d The Labor continuing 63. admitted failure reinstate is a cided employer so that shall not Act intends the violation order and of our that the back oppose seeking his in punish men who pay cannot be determined until such resto- organize bargaining. ration, for collective need do purge Potash no more to contempt itself of its than make the ordered precede must the restoration de The payment and of restoration back within wages. nearly termining of back In all days date sixty from the of our decree. negotiating a matter of cases this will be having backing men of the (b) regard With to the claimed organization the em successful which of our cease and (c), violation desist order attempted prevent ployer has bar allegations from of Board’s collectively with him. gaining The re different situation show a con- employee, distinguished present from the tinuing stored and violation of order one, technically discharged pay. made an em and The restoration Board statute, security charges “sponsored has the ployee pro- Potash that necessary participate organization confidence labor restored cured the formation of negotiations Independent for the determination in of known as the Chemical Work- inequality bargaining pow- 1 depressions, by depress- of “The current business employees pos- ing wage power purchasing who do between rates and the er industry wage pre- lull freedom association or ac- earners in sess liberty contract, employers venting competitive stabilization tual working organized corporate wage in are or rates who conditions with- 2!) ownership forms of sub- in industries.” other association and between U.S. stantially 151, July 5, 1985, 1, 372, and affects burdens the flow O.A. Act c. § § commerce, aggravate and tends re- 49 Stat. 449. 236 that contempt ers’ and inter- Potash Union” and dominated be held in alleged fered that Independent administration dominance over with Chemical Workers Union.
union. the cease As to violation of alleged STEPHENS, Judge (con- until Board waited desist order the curring) . alleged acts advise this months after the I concur in dignity regard or to that to its court the affront comply failure to 2(a) with our of the order we enforced. orders Board whose and (b) and in the result contention part Board’s A the dismissal of the order to show cause there here is that argument brief both with reference to our 1(c). order and desist to our cease supersedeas nowas contemptuous was (c). Hence it River Sav disobey Merrimack once to it. Center, Clay U.S. City ings Bank v. 295, 320, 527, 536, Ann. 55 L.Ed. 31 S.Ct. Cas.1912A, Board does not con any delay in its dis tend that there was explains its failure covery of the facts but con prevent contemptuous the claimed *5 alleged domination of the tinuance of the union, before, LOVE COM v. MI SSI ONER OF INTERNAL formed 15 months be more convenient to REVENUE. claim that it would stay expiration of a of the wait until the LERMANN v. SAME. provisions affirmative order 2a and of our contempts punishment both and seek b LOVE’S ESTATE et al. v. SAME. charged that the of once. is obvious It Nos. 7265-7267. entirely different in character fenses are happening over and that if the domination Appeals, Circuit Court of Third Circuit. sufficiently substantial year before were 27, no mere contempt, convenience to constitute such a warrants of the or Board court delay. course, employees, had the While the affidavits to form another union. surrounding its for- disclose circumstances suspicion that mation which arouse inspired been by movement employer, showing as weak. we phase argument Board on this The is more or less of the synthetically up. built showing of act of domi- There is no prior 13 months nation Potash within by petition. All filing the Board’s are contradicted pertinent allegations witnesses. That of Potash’s affidavits memory has obscured months happenings employees in these controversy this the emotions aroused apparent with their reference affidavits and do believe we exploration charge for further .(c) required of our order disobedience authority court or to vindicate purposes the Act. aid effectuate a decree conforming order entered contempt Potash in holding violating our order of restoration and discharging order to show it concerns so far as cause chargq