HOOVER DESIGN 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 threatening to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board does not constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Hoover Design Corporation discharged employee Roscoe Vogt. The National Labor Relations Board found this discharge violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(…
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 Section 8(A)(1) Unfair Labor Practice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hoover Design Corporation, petitioner, seeks a review of and a vacation of a final order of the National Labor Relations Board. (Section 160(f), Title 29, U.S.C.) The Board has filed an answer requesting enforcement of its order. The Board’s Decision and Order are reported at 167 NLRB No. 62.
The Board found that the petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (4) of the Labor Management Relations Act by discharging employee Roscoe Vogt. The basis of the Board’s findings was that Vogt was discharged because he engaged in concerted activity (8(a) (1)) for the benefit of employees concerning Thanksgiving holiday compensation and because he threatened to go to the Board with his grievance (8(a) (4)).
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the 8(a) (1) violation.
Section 8(a) (4), (Sec. 158(4), Title 29, U.S.C.) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice “to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this subchapter; * * * ” We conclude as a matter of law that threatening to go to the Board or threatening to file charges with the Board does not constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (4). See NLRB v. Ritchie Mfg. Co., 354 F. 2d 90 (C.A. 8). No cases have been cited to us nor have we found any that would support such a violation.
The order of the Board will be enforced with the exception of modifications 1(c) and 4 of the Trial Examiner’s recommended order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1972)
-
Hugh H. Wilson Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 414 F.2d 1345 (3d Cir. 1969)
-
Phillips v. Interior Bd. OF Mine Operations Appeals, 500 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ritchie Mfg. Co., 354 F.2d 90 (8th Cir. 1965)