AEROGLASTICS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 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 unfair labor practices were supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's order.
Aeroglastics encouraged employees to form an in-house committee to undermine a union campaign and discharged three employees known to be pro-union. Th…
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 Unfair Labor Practice (Under Nlra) cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Aeroglastics, Inc., seeks to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board. The Board held, among other findings not questioned in this appeal, that Aeroglastics committed unfair labor practices by encouraging employees to establish a shop committee in an effort to undermine the union’s organizational campaign, and by discharging three employees because of their union activities. We believe the findings are supported by substantial evidence and direct enforcement of the order. The decision below is found at 228 N.L.R.B. 1157 (1977).
In early October, 1975, indications of union organizational efforts by certain Aeroglastics’ employees became apparent.
The record discloses a number of incidents involving discussions between company management and employees participating in the union effort which clearly showed that the company disapproved of and even tried to discourage the organizational campaign. There was evidence that the company president approached one employee recommending he try to form an in-house committee. Further, three employees whom the evidence reveals were known by company management to be pro-union were laid off in November. They returned to the company on several occasions for the purpose of asking when they would be called back to work.
Finally, on one of these visits they were informed they were being discharged for trespassing on company property. Their behavior on this last visit was not shown to have differed at all from their actions on the other visits.
We are required' to affirm a factual finding of the Board if it is corroborated by substantial evidence when viewing the record as a whole. N. L. R. B. v. Stemun Manufacturing Company, 423 F. 2d 737 (6th Cir. 1970). We find substantial evidence in this record to support the Board’s decision.
Accordingly, the cross-motion of the Board for enforcement is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stemun Mfg. Co., Inc., 423 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1970)