NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
ELLIS AND WATTS PRODUCTS, 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 Board's findings of employer violations were supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement of the Board's order.
The Board found an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with employees' rights, laying off employees to discourage union …
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 Membership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The case is before us on petition for enforcement of the Board’s order. The Board found that respondent employer had interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in their right to engage in concerted activity; that it laid off 27 of 43 production employees in order to discourage membership in the union and refused to bargain collectively with the union all in violation of Sections 8(a) (1), 8(a) (3) (1), and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
The principal contention urged upon us by respondent is that the layoffs were made on account of economic reasons, i. e., its poor financial condition. This would, of course, be justification for the layoffs if it were the real reason. The employer did not take such action until after the union had requested a meeting with it for the purpose of working out a collective bargaining agreement. The union had authorization cards signed by about 95% of the employees and the employer was advised of this fact.
The Board in arriving at its decision took into account the massive nature of the layoffs, the fact that 10 new employees were hired shortly thereafter and a statement made by the president of the employer to four of the employees that “you just voted yourself out of a job.” The Board had the right not only to consider the evidence, but also to draw inferences therefrom. The finding of the Board is binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. National Labor Relations Board v. Putnam Tool Co., 290 F. 2d 663 (CA 6). The present case presents purely questions of fact. In our judgment, the order of the Board is supported by substantial evidence.
In considering the amounts to' be paid to employees under the back pay order, we think the Board should take into account the probable duration of their employment which the financial condition and business of the employer would have justified if the layoffs had not been made. The power of the Board to order reinstatement with back pay is remedial in nature and may not be used as a fine or penalty for violation of the Act. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126; Nierotko v. Social Security Board, 149 F. 2d 273 (CA 6).
Petition for enforcement granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. OF Ohio, Inc., 374 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1967)
-
Majestic Molded Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 330 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1964)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ellis & Watts Prods., Inc., 344 F.2d 67 (6th Cir. 1965)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Putnam Tool Co., 290 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1961)
- Nierotko v. Soc. Sec. Bd., 149 F.2d 273 (6th Cir. 1945)