NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
F. A. REYNOLDS CO., 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 held that the National Labor Relations Board's findings that the employer violated the NLRA by refusing to bargain were supported by substantial evidence and thus could not be disturbed.
The National Labor Relations Board found that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc. violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by refusing to bargain with the ce…
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 Summary Calendar Procedure 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 F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29, U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., by refusing to bargain with International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers AFL-CIO, the certified exclusive representative of its employees. The sole issue on this petition for enforcement is whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
There is ample record support for the Board’s findings that negotiations had not reached an impasse and that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) when it refused to bargain; accordingly, these findings may not be disturbed by us. N.L.R.B. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bread, Dallas, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F. 2d 484; N.L.R.B. v. McLane Company, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 405 F. 2d 483, 484, and N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F. 2d 321.
All other contentions of respondent are without merit. The order of the Board is
Enforced.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
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. Tex. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 365 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McLANE Co., Inc., 405 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. MRS. Baird's Bread, 420 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1969)