NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
B. F. DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND DIAMOND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENTS
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 Board's findings of the employer's violations of the National Labor Relations Act are supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the Board's bargaining order is enforced.
The National Labor Relations Board (Board) petitioned for enforcement of its bargaining order against the Employer. The Board found the Employer viola…
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 Duty To Bargain In Good Faith cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is another of the frequent cases in which the Board petitions for enforcement of its bargaining order, entered after finding that the Employer violated § 8(a) (5), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (5). As with so many, it illustrates again that the supposed speed of administrative proceedings may be very questionable.1 We conclude without difficulty that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. We therefore enforce.
Briefly, the Board found that the Company (1) did not satisfy the statutory obligation to meet at reasonable times with the Union, (2) failed to furnish information necessary and relevant to bargaining, and (3) in other ways failed to negotiate in good faith with the Union, in violation of section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. Since one such violation is enough to trigger the § 8(a) (5) order, no particularly useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence upon which the Trial Examiner and Board based their findings and conclusions. It is sufficient to say that, as usual, there was a certain amount of conflicting testimony which required credibility resolutions — a function peculiarly within the province of the Trial Examiner and the Board. See, e. g., NLRB v. May Aluminum, Inc., 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F. 2d 47, 51; NLRB v. Tidelands Marine Serv., Inc., 5 Cir., 1964, 338 F. 2d 44, 47; Martin Sprocket & Gear Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1964, 329 F. 2d 417, 420.
On our thorough examination of the record in the light of applicable standards, we conclude that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the company failed to bargain with the Union in good faith, in violation of § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 1950, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. That is the end of it. At long last the end is declared.
Enforced.
. The Board’s decision and order of February 28, 1967, are reported at 163 NLRB No. 25. The Union was certified on July 1, 1965. Thus nearly four years have gone by — presumably with neither contract nor bargaining since April 28, 1966.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 587 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
T. I. M. E. - DC, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 504 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 493 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- Martin Sprocket & Gear Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 329 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. MAY Aluminum, Inc., 398 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tidelands Marine Serv., Inc., 338 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1964)