*1 ensued, request union’s In above circumstances the the for bar- the gaining enforcement of its a is entitled to must be deemed continu- Board Company request. the cease desist The instant case is like order that refusing bargain except here, Scobell Union. The instead of construing striking justified picketing, Board was Union pursued bargaining request as con Union’s conduct described above a its tinuing recognition through petition certification, in cir a demand Company’s a formal demand in until practices cumstances where unfair labor light Company’s prior peremptory rendered the election route impassable. Surely em refusal would have been ployer An useless. the Union here when, 8(a)(5) position as violates Section not be in a worse here, bargaining rejects, having than the a Union’s re union in Scobell for quest, peaceful procedures made in honest but followed pressing mistaken obtained, majority continuing belief has its I demand. find, questioning repre therefore, Company’s without the Union’s recognize status, refusal sentative and the Union does ob the Union after majority April shortly tain 8(a)(5) after such re violated Section quest. finding The facts warrant the Act.” recognition the Union’s demand for con The order of the Board insofar as it April tinued to ex matter is complaint regarding dismissed the pressed convincing discharge manner in the of Baker is set aside and this aspect decision of the Trial Examiner as fol case remanded for re- light consideration the Board in lows: opinion, with leave to receive addi- Company’s bargain, “The refusal to tional evidence if so advised. In all however, based on the fact respects other the order of the Board will that the Union April 18, held cards on be enforced. outright It is so ordered. rejection request of the Union’s with regard out to the number of cards light held. In the of this refusal
would have been futile for the Union formally request to renew its
April 25. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Burton- Corp., 199, 200,
Dixie (C.A. 10), where union lacked a majority the time it TIMMONS, William H. Appellant, recognition, request but where the continuing was understood America, UNITED STATES Burton-Dixie, here, character. Appellee. employer’s quite attitude made it request clear that a later would have futile, holding and the court’s properly there that the Board found bargain suggests a refusal propriety holding of a similar here. See also Scobell Chemical Co. v. N.L. R.B., (C.A.2), court, assuming where the that
union majority lacked a at the time bargaining its request, found that Washington, majority C.,
it had such day, Mr. John C. Poole D. next (appointed by light court), Washington, held that in D, picketing C., appellant. strike and there *2 Mr, premium. .appellant, Thus al McTague, Asst. U. S. second Daniel J. though apparently and admitted to bail pay Atty., David C. Ache- with Messrs. whom custody bond, Nebeker, was in Q. son, Atty., able to for U. and Frank S. immediately preced Atty., for the two months ing for Asst. U. on the S. Consequently, he was un trial. appellee. freely to consult with his counsel able as and BAZELON, preparation de in of his and to aid and Danaher, been had he re as he would have fense Judgment large; at mained has been raised Because the issue PER CURIAM. possible appeal, it is first time on not on rec- This case came heard appellant prejudice which to assess the appeal from the United States ord on may all have the circum- suffered. District Court for the District Colum- case, I do not that stances think appellant’s for reduc- bia and on motion justified, proceedings would further argu- bail, tion of and the court heard error, join and, in the of other absence ment of counsel. the affirmance of the conviction. or- it is Whereof, On Consideration noting, however, It is worth that the. by adjudged dered and court given judge not below need have conclu judgment appealed District Court sive force to the bondsman’s desire to affirmed; from in and in view this case is appellant poor as a risk.2 surrender thereof, it is originally Since bond had been the court Further Ordered seeking and was return the bondsman to appellant’s of bail motion reduction charge custody, been to it would have is denied. possible proper the court to —and —for carefully inquire into the circumstances BAZELON, Judge (concur- appellant allegedly poor which rendered ring) : Moreover, if even he felt con risk.3 pending While on bail trial for the judg accept to bondsman’s strained charge (assault weapon) deadly with a acceptability to the bonds ment as convicted, appellant was stands appellant risk, man of two-year-old charg arrested on a warránt inquired should—have into could—and fugitive him from with assuring ac alternative means justice.1 charge, on *Bail was set Increasingly, trial. cused’s apparently re bondsman practice is accent in bail granted quested permission to and was “ * * * custody allowing surrender him his bond for on on defendants charge accept recognizance, assault than own release their alleged appellant been con It is had 115 U.S. Pannell v. United Cf. manslaughter, App.D.C. 379, 380, victed in Florida of paroled .serving years opinion). (concurring of his three super District, term under import 'Parole vision the District of Columbia arrest 3. Whatever a new judgment risk, generally never Board. For reasons which have for a as to stated, Parole Board add the District in case seems to warrant used this. to re have the Florida authorities which would little to information July call Flor bondsman when he been available to the ap Appel- give surety. originally issued a ida authorities warrant decided to certainly pellant’s probationary The issuance of this was arrest. lant’s known; status ap gave fugitive war- warrant color to the claim that of a the issuance pellant fugitive. readily A war been inferred. was District could have rant arrest, alleged pre- rant for his it was had was issued is the warrant It viously Maryland, this warrant which spring. last and that served served prosecution war The under this it was dismissed. eventually rant terminated in a nolle open prosequi, entered court. adequate penalties certain fugitives non-appearance. Today very go or do far maintain their very long, as such so no status guarantee required to insure their
appearance when ordered. Encour-
agement appear be in. of
the form loss the bondsman’s
money, rather in loss the de- liberty. Actually, fendant’s Denniston, petition- Mr. Frederick W. system professional bondsman pro er se. money only who loses one Garrett, Atty., Dept, Mr. Crombie J. D. non-appearance professional Atty. Justice, Gen., with whom Asst. money bondsman, paid to obtain Louis F. Oberdorfer Mr. Lee A. Jack- lost to defendant bond son, Atty., Dept, Justice, were any v. United [Pannell event.” respondent. 380, States, U.S.App.D.C. 320 Cohen, Counsel, Mr. Sheldon S. F.2d at 699.] Service, Internal Revenue also entered is no indication whether There respondent. the return who Bazelon, inquiry. undertook either line Burgee, required. I observe
PER CURIAM: Petitioners, filing a husband and wife joint return, income tax seek reversal aof Tax Court determination that mon- eys the husband received as Govern- al., W. et Frederick DENNISTON Employees’ ment Incentive Award were Petitioners, gross affirm, includible in We income. v. adopting the decision of Tax Court. OF INTERNAL COMMISSIONER REV- ENUE, Respondent. The excellent services which led to question just award in those per- the husband had been instructed to employment. form in the course of his The statute under which the award to 11, him was made does not authorize awards “religious, charitable, scientific,
educational, artistic, literary, or civic (26 74(b)) ; achievement” rath- U.S.C. § er, discretionary authorizes awards department heads to those Government employees who “contribute to efficien- cy, economy, improvement or other operations perform Government or who special public acts or services in the in- terest in connection with or related to generally, Wald, senting statement). 4. See Bail Dreed & It is of interest (A premium ap- bail bond the United States: Report parently upon surrender, to the National Conference on not returned Justice); Alston and Criminal Bail so that lost and his free- U.S.App.D.C.-, dom, United both. (dis- Order of Dec.