Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mahoney v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1954No. 32101Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*466Finley, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part)— The majority takes the position that the N.L.R.B. has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of whether the union committed an unfair labor practice entitling Mahoney to damages for loss of employment and wages. The portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding compensatory damages to Mahoney is reversed. I agree with this. However, the majority holds that the portion of the judgment of the trial court ordering the reinstatement of Mahoney to union membership is a matter within the jurisdiction of the trial court because…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mahoney v. Sailors' Union of PacificWashington Supreme Court · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API