NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
THE DIVIGARD BAKING CO., 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 substantial evidence in the record supports the National Labor Relations Board's conclusions regarding violations of the National Labor Relations Act.
The National Labor Relations Board sought enforcement of its order against a respondent employer. The Board found the employer violated several sectio…
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 (Nlra) Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order against respondent. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 153 NLRB No. 36.
The Board found that respondent had violated Sections 8(a) (1), 8(a) (2), 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) (1), (a) (2), (a) (3) and (a) (5), and it ordered respondent to cease and desist from the violations and to take certain affirmative action.
The principal contention in opposition to this petition concerns the violation of Section 8(a) (5), involving respondent’s refusal to bargain with the union. Respondent argues that its refusal was not culpable since it had a good faith doubt concerning the union’s majority status. In particular, respondent challenges the validity of the union’s authorization cards which it claims were obtained under a misrepresentation that their sole purpose was to force an election. See NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., 359 F. 2d 684 (2d Cir. 1966). An attack is also made on the Board’s finding that respondent fired an employee to discourage union activity in violation of section 8(a) (3).
Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Board’s conclusions which are therefore unassailable here. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Its order is appropriate to redress the violations which the Board has found. See NLRB v. Gotham Shoe Manufacturing Co., supra.
Enforcement granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. E. Nichols Co., 380 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1967)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Pembeck OIL Corp., 404 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1968)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Niskayuna Consumers Coop., Inc., 376 F.2d 260 (2d Cir. 1966)
Authorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gotham Shoe Mfg. Co., Inc., 359 F.2d 684 (2d Cir. 1966)