HURON COPYSETTE, 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 company's actions, including interrogating employees and terminating one for union activity, constituted unfair labor practices.
Huron Copysette, Inc. was found by the NLRB to have interrogated employees about union activities and threatened plant closure. The company also termi…
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 Threats Of Plant Closure cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the court on petition of Huron Copysette, Inc., pursuant to § 10(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board issued on September 29,1977, and reported at 232 NLRB No.
92. The Board has cross applied for enforcement of its order. Huron Copysette, Inc., is a company engaged in the manufacture of paper products in Leitchfield, Kentucky. The Board found that the company attempted to avert the unionization of its employees by the Cooper’s International Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Specifically, the Board found that the company violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees concerning their Ünion activities and by threatening plant closure and less favorable working conditions if the employees voted for a union. The Board also found that the company violated § 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating employee William Howell because of his Union activity.
The record when considered as a whole substantially supports the Board’s findings. Shortly after the Union organizing campaign began, company officials began coercively interrogating and threatening employees as to the consequences of bringing in the Union. Further, there is substantial evidence that the termination of employee William Howell was prompted by anti-union reasons, rather than by valid considerations as the company contends.
Accordingly, the Board’s order is enforced.