NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
ART METALCRAFT PLATING 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 should be enforced based on substantial evidence of the Respondent's violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the Union, threatening plant closure, and discharging/laying off empl…
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 Back Pay Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
It is not contested here that (1) Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 5) by refusing to bargain upon request with the Union at a time when the latter represented a majority of Respondent’s employees in an appropriate unit and (2) that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as amended by threatening to close its plant in reprisal for its employees’ union interest and activity.
The record in this proceeding gives firm support for the decision of the Board that Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act as amended by the layoff of three employees and the discharge of eight other employees to prevent unionization of its plant. Substantial evidence in the record also justifies the Board’s finding (and its consequent back pay order) that the Respondent did not unconditionally offer reinstatement to the employees involved until July 22, 1960.
The order of the Board will be enforced. A proposed decree to that effect may be submitted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Mims v. United States, 332 F.2d 944 (10th Cir. 1964)
-
Gojack v. United States, 384 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1966)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence