National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 365 U.S. 123, 81 S. Ct. 434, 5 L. Ed. 2d 455, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2437, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2043, SCDB 1960-036

Decision Date: 1/23/1961

Docket Number: No. 74

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: National Labor Relations Board v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123, 81 S. Ct. 434, 5 L. Ed. 2d 455, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2437, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 2043, SCDB 1960-036 (1961)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1961

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 61 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

5th Cir.11

7th Cir.10

4th Cir.8

8th Cir.8

6th Cir.6

2d Cir.4

Most recently cited by10

2024NLRB v. United Scrap Metal PA LLC 3rd Cir.
2010National Labor Relations Board v. Bloomfield Health Care Center 2d Cir.
1999Avondale Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 5th Cir.
1997Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 8th Cir.
1996Uniroyal Technology Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board 7th Cir.
1994Bituma Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board 8th Cir.
1994National Labor Relations Board v. VSA, Inc. 4th Cir.
1994National Labor Relations Board v. Black Bull Carting Inc. 2d Cir.
1994National Labor Relations Board v. Arthur Sarnow Candy Co. 2d Cir.
1993Swing Staging, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board D.C. Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MATTISON MACHINE WORKS.

Attorneys

Norton J. Come argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli and Allan I. Mendelsohn.
J. Warren McCaffrey argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Charles B. Cannon.
Harold A. Katz and Irving M. Friedman filed a brief for the United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

majority Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case 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 Board’s 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 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.