NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO., INC., RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was valid and enforceable, even though a regional division of the charging union had not complied with certain filing requirements, because the international union had complied and the regional designation was subsequently removed.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought enforcement of its order against Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc. The company resisted unionization t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse National Labor Relations Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are asked by the National Labor Relations Board to order enforced, the board’s order against Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc. The proceeding is a typical one under authority of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and the board’s “Decision and Order” is reported in 103 N.L.R.B. # 101, inclusive of authorities and applicable sections of the Act. The board found that respondent resisted unionization of its plant: by using its supervisional personnel to influence the employees to vote against unionization by various threats and inducements; by discriminating against certain employees for their pro-union activities; by wage and insurance benefits; by the discharge of employees.
Respondent claims that it did no more in opposition to the unionization of the plant than it had the right to do under § 8(c) of the Act, which guarantees to the employer the right to fairly state and argue its views.
There is substantial evidence to support the Board in its findings on these subjects, notwithstanding substantial evidence to the contrary. We do not find clear error. Respondent claims that the charging union is “Region No. 6” and that such union has not complied with § 9(f) and (h), (the non-communist oath requirement).
The proceedings were laid and conducted under the complaint of the “International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), Region 6.” It is conceded that the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, has complied with the non-communist oath; “Region 6” separately has not.
Subsequently to the original Decision and Order of the board, the board amended the proceeding including the Decision and Order by deleting the expression “Region 6”.
The evidence showed the expression “Region 6” means the geographical division of the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW-CIO), and is not itself a union.
The Decision and Order under the original order was, and the supplemental or amended Decision and Order is valid. The petition is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963)