SHEFFER CORPORATION, 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 fact were supported by substantial evidence and granted enforcement of the Board's order.
The employer discontinued its night shift after union organization, rehiring some employees but not four named in the union letter who had more senior…
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 Burden Of Proof In Labor Disputes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves a petition to review and a cross-petition to enforce an Order of the National Labor Relations Board requiring Petitioner to cease and desist from 8(a) (1) violations and to rehire four named employees with back pay.
On receiving notice of Union organization from the Union1 Petitioner discontinued its entire night shift of 27 employees where Union organization had gained strength. Subsequently, nine were rehired for day shift (others were rehired later). The four not rehired had all been named in the Union letter and had more seniority than some others retained or rehired.
Petitioner contends that the night shift was uneconomic and that the Trial Examiner was prejudiced. The Trial Examiner once referred to the Company as having failed to bear the burden of proof on its economy defense. The National Labor Relations Board carefully dealt with this issue, stating:
“ * * * We agree with the Respondent that the ultimate burden of proving the allegations of the complaint at all times remained with the General Counsel. However, we find that the statement was merely inadvertent, and that the Trial Examiner thereby simply intended to indicate that the Respondent had the burden of going forward with the evidence in support of its position; not, the ultimate burden of proof had shifted to the Respondent.”
It is well settled that the weighing of the evidence is a function of the Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Precision Castings Co., 130 F. 2d 639 (C.A. 6).
This Court in reviewing the decision of the Board “is not empowered to weigh one bit of evidence against another with a view of determining which it will accept as true or to substitute its judgment for that of the Board in determining what ultimate facts are established by the circumstances in evidence.” Eastern Coal Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 176 F. 2d 131, 135 (C.A. 4). The findings of the Board with respect to questions of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 29 U.S.C., 160(e); National Labor Relations Board v. Tru-Line Metal Products Co., 324 F. 2d 614 (C.A. 6), cert. den. 377 U.S. 906, 84 S.Ct. 1167, 12 L.Ed.2d 177. We hold that the findings of fact by the Board in the present case are so supported. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456.
Enforcement of the Board’s Order is granted.
. District Lodge No. 34 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Louisville Chair Co., Inc., 385 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1967)
-
Sterling Aluminum Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 391 F.2d 713 (8th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- E. Coal Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 176 F.2d 131 (4th Cir. 1949)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tru-Line Metal Prods. Co. & Tru-Line Screw Prods., 324 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1963)
- Durant v. United States, 377 U.S. 906 (U.S. 1964)
- Tru-Line Metal Prods. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 377 U.S. 906 (U.S. 1964)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Precision Castings Co., 130 F.2d 639 (6th Cir. 1942)