NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
GIBBS CORPORATION, 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 there was substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging employees for filing charges.
Twenty employees were discharged after sending a letter to their employer advising of charges filed against both the employer and their union regardin…
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.
The question before us is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings1 that Respondent violated § 8(a) (1) and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act
by discharging twenty employees for filing charges against Respondent alleging violations of the Act.
In short, the employees felt that their union was not representing them properly with respect to a grievance over seniority matters. The employees involved were fired because of a letter sent to a Gibbs executive advising him that charges had been filed against both Gibbs and the Union and that the employees listed in the letter supported the charge.
Respondent claims the men were discharged because it thought that it would be an unfair labor practice on its part to meet with the men, since the men were members of the Union with which Gibbs had a labor contract. However, the Board found that, in any event, no such meeting was requested.
The Board found that the discharge was not justified and that Respondent was guilty of an unfair labor practice in discharging the men. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings and conclusions.
The Petition for Enforcement is
Granted.
. 131 N.L.R.B. 118.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nash v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & the Stanley Works, 205 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
-
Nash v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 389 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1967)