NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
MRS. BAIRD'S BREAD, DALLAS, 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 employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act were supported by substantial evidence.
The National Labor Relations Board found that Mrs. Baird’s Bread violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by coercive…
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 Coercive Interrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of .this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, Part I.
The National Labor Relations Board found that Mrs. Baird’s Bread, of Dallas, Texas, had violated § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by coer-cively interrogating L. T. Mason about his Union activities and that § 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act had been violated in the demotion of L. T. Mason for similar reasons, 171 N.L.R.B. No. 26.
The sole issue on this petition for enforcement is whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Much of the evidence, and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, are in direct conflict. Never.the- less, taking into consideration the credibility determinations and choice of inferences which devolve upon the Board, we have no doubt that the findings are amply supported. See, in particular, N. L. R. B. v. Gibbs Corporation, 5 Cir., 1962, 297 F. 2d 649, 651; N. L. R. B. v. Monroe Equipment Company, 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F. 2d 559, 561.
It necessarily follows that the Order will be
Enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., 424 F.2d 1068 (5th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 392 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Gibbs Corp. & S. Shipbuilding, Inc., 297 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1962)