NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
UNIVERSAL CIGAR CORPORATION, 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 employer engaged in unfair labor practices regarding two of three incidents, but not the third.
The NLRB petitioned for enforcement of its order finding an employer engaged in unfair labor practices. The court reviewed three incidents: refusal to…
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 No Solicitation Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Again the NLRB petitions for enforcement of its order finding that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices. In that special numerical jargon with which we have become too familiar, this case involves an 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (Sys.1 And here, as in so many cases, the only issue involved is whether the Board had substantial evidence from which to find that there were discriminatory practices. We conclude that such substantial evidence existed for two of the three incidents, and that it did not exist in the third.
The Board’s conclusion that the refusal to recall Tellis Smith was discriminatory, a § 8(a) (1) and (3) violation, is supported by substantial evidence from the record as a whole. That determination was largely a matter of evaluating the credibility of witnesses, a function of the Board, Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1966, 354 F. 2d 707. Likewise, the Board’s conclusion that the questioning of employee Todd about the strength of the union constituted a violation of § 8 (a) (1) is also supported by substantial evidence. Such questioning can be coercive, NLRB v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F. 2d 787, and from the evidence here the determination that this was is supported.
We refuse, however, to enforce the Board’s finding, which overruled a hearing examiner’s determination and from which one member dissented, of a § 8(a) (3) and (1) violation in the discharge of James Townsend. The solicitation by Townsend clearly violated a valid no-solicitation rule. And, despite testimony about turkey raffles and Avon ladies, there is no substantial evidence for the conclusion of disparate enforcement or waiver of the rule. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1968, 405 F. 2d 1.
Enforcement granted in part and denied in part.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1) and (3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Birdsall Constr. Co., 487 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United GAS Pipe Line Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 471 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951)
- The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 354 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunnyland Packing Co., 369 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 405 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1968)