NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
LA-Z-BOY TENNESSEE, RESPONDENT

6th Cir. | 1980-06-17
No. 78-1209
623 F.2d 20 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (1980)

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.


Holding

The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order against La-Z-Boy Tennessee is supported by substantial evidence and is therefore enforceable.


Facts & Procedural History

The National Labor Relations Board found that La-Z-Boy Tennessee violated the National Labor Relations Act by coercively interrogating employees about…

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.


Opinion of the Court

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) has applied to this court for enforcement of its order against La-Z-Boy Tennessee (Company) reported at 233 NLRB No. 185 which found that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq. by coercively interrogating some of its employees concerning their union activities and sympathies and further found that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to rehire Ferrell Hensley and Freddy Johnson, by imposing more onerous working conditions upon Bill Scott, by discharging Leona Hensley and by discharging Betty Jo McClenda because of their union sympathies and activities.

The principal issue in the case is whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

We have held that coercive interrogation of employees about their union sympathies or activities violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Jervis Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 387 F. 2d 107, 111 (6th Cir. 1967).

Where there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s inferences of unlawful motivation, it is not our province to discard the Board’s choice between two conflicting views even though we might have arrived at a different conclusion if we were considering the matter de novo. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). We are of the opinion that the Board’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not unlawful.

It is therefore ordered that the order of the Board be and it is hereby enforced.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw