NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
JOHN DEERE PLOW CO.

5th Cir. | 1951-02-13
No. 13178
187 F.2d 26 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1951) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's finding of Section 8(5) violations was not well-based and would not be enforced.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board issued an order requiring Respondent to cease interfering with employees and to bargain with the union. Respondent …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The order, enforcement of which is here sought, requires Respondent: (1) to cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees, in violation of Section 8(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1); and (2) to cease and desist from refusing, in violation of Section 8(5) of the Act, to bargain with the union, and to bargain with the union upon request.

The finding of Sec. 8(1) violations is concurred in by all the Board members, and Respondent does not deny that the evidence credited by the Board supports it. Indeed, they do not resist enforcement of paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b) of the order based on this finding.

The finding of Sec. 8(5) violations is concurred in by three, and dissented from by two, members of the Board, and Respondent vigorously contests its correctness and resists enforcement of the order based thereon.

In agreement, as we are, with the views ol the dissenting members, it will serve no useful purpose for us to do more than say that the contested finding is not well based, and the order based on it will not be enforced. Of the supplemental contention put forward for the first time in the Board’s brief that our opinion in Holmes Company v. N. L. R. B., 179 F. 2d 876, requires enforcement, it is sufficient to say that that case is not in point on the facts and that what was there decided does not support the enforcement contended for. The enforcement prayer will be granted as to paragraphs 1(b) and 2(b) and (c), but denied as to paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a).

Enforcement granted in part and denied in part.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw