NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
AUTOMOTIVE TEXTILE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., 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 found substantial evidence supporting the National Labor Relations Board's order and enforced it.
The National Labor Relations Board sought enforcement of its order against a company accused of violating the National Labor Relations Act through ant…
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.
This cause is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order in a matter involving alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board’s order is reported at 171 NLRB, No.
157. The charged violations consisted of resistance to an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America to bring into that union the employees of the company; alleged coercive interrogation of employees ; threats of reprisal such as closing down the plant; and granting vacation pay to employees to discourage support of the union.
We find that there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s order. Respondent also complains of the denial of its request for a Bill oLParticulars prior to the hearing, and refusal to permit examination of affidavits or statements made by certain persons to the Board. We are satisfied that no prejudice was visited upon the respondent through failure to provide a Bill of Particulars. Consumers Power v. NLRB, 113 F. 2d 38, 42-43 (6th Cir. 1940).
We find no error in the refusal of the trial examiner to provide, in advance of trfal, affidavits and statements given by witnesses who were to be called by the General Counsel. Raser Tanning v. NLRB, 276 F. 2d 80-83 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524.
At the hearing, respondent’s counsel was allowed, for purposes of cross-examination, to examine affidavits and statements of witnesses who had testified.
We find without merit the respondent’s contention that the Board’s order should not be enforced because changes in its work force have occurred since the institution of this proceeding; likewise, bias of the trial examiner has not been demonstrated to such a degree as to vitiate his decision. See NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 93 L.Ed. 1602 (1949).
It is ordered that the order of the Board heretofore entered in this cause be, and it is, hereby enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hardeman Garment Corp., 557 F.2d 559 (6th Cir. 1977)
-
P.S.C. Res., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 576 F.2d 380 (1st Cir. 1978)
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Master Slack and/or Master Trousers Corp., 618 F.2d 6 (6th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 337 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1949)
- Consumers Power Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 113 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1940)
- Raser Tanning Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 276 F.2d 80 (6th Cir. 1960)
- Byram v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 363 U.S. 830 (U.S. 1960)
- Lamb v. Sutton, 363 U.S. 830 (U.S. 1960)