Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 15, 1987No. Docket Nos. E000392, E000461Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
KAUFMAN, J.,Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment and in all portions of the opinion except those portions of part I dealing with the res judicata effect to be given the finding of condonation in the decision in 8 ALRB No. 89 and dealing with the Lu-Ette formula. As to those portions of part I, I dissent.
Res Judicata
I do not agree either (1) that it is necessary to decide whether a res judicata effect is to be given to the condonation finding in 8 ALRB No. 89 *910or (2) that if that question were reached, any res judicata effect should be given that decision in this review.
First, as…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Republic Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.