OLD KING COLE, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 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 findings of unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and would be enforced.
The National Labor Relations Board found that a petitioner violated the NLRA by discharging employees to discourage union membership and by offering b…
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 Discouraging Union Membership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, together with the Board’s answer requesting enforcement of its order. Substantially adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of its Trial Examiner, the Board found that the petitioner had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1, 3), by discharging four of its employees to discourage membership in a labor organization and had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by offering economic benefits to its employees to induce them to refrain from seeking representation by a labor organization and by openly polling its employees as to their union sympathies. 1957, 117 N.L.R.B. 297.
The petitioner insists that the four employees were discharged not because of union activity as such, but because their activities, conducted on company premises and company time, had a disruptive effect upon the production and efficiency of its business. See N. L. R. B. v. Edin-burg Citrus Ass’n, 5 Cir., 1945, 147 F. 2d 353; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 1956, 230 F. 2d 357; N. L. R. B. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 7 Cir., 1956, 237 F. 2d 75. It insists further that under the circumstances disclosed by the record, including the past history of its employee relations, the offer of economic benefits and poll of employees did not constitute an unfair labor practice. , See N. L. R. B. v. Protein Blenders, 8 Cir., 1954, 215 F. 2d 749; N. L. R. B. v. Roberts Brothers, 9 Cir., 1955, 225 F. 2d 58.
As is so frequently true in this type of ease, the evidence upon the question of motivation was conflicting, and the record considered as a whole is reasonably susceptible to the inference that the petitioner’s conduct was not intended or effective to discourage union activities, as well as to the contrary inference that it was. When that is the case the choice the Board has made is not to be set aside by us, even though we might have chosen the contrary inference. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.
Accordingly, the Board’s order must be enforced, and it is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Bendix Corp. (Research Labs. Division), 299 F.2d 308 (6th Cir. 1962)
-
The Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 331 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1964)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Power Equip. Co., 313 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1963)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 230 F.2d 357 (7th Cir. 1956)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Edinburg Citrus Ass'n, 147 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1945)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Protein Blenders, Inc., 215 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1954)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Roberts Bros., 225 F.2d 58 (9th Cir. 1955)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 237 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1956)