Alco Plating Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Ninth Circuit

Alco Plating Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

436 F.2d 1378, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2623, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11854

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 1971

Docket25323_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 1378 (Alco Plating Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alco Plating Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 436 F.2d 1378, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2623, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11854 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner asks us to review and set aside a decision and order of the respondent issued pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. (29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.). Respondent cross-petitions for a decree enforcing its order.

A discussion of the facts would add nothing to the existing law on the issues before us. After an examination of the entire record, we hold that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings: (1) that petitioner violated Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith with reference to wages; (2) that the March 4, 1968, strike was an unfair labor practice strike; (3) that petitioner violated Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by withdrawing recognition from the union on March 19, 1968, and (4) that petitioner unlawfully promised benefits to employees in return for their not supporting the union. N. L. R. B. v. Staub Cleaners, Inc., 418 F.2d 1086, 1089 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1038, 90 S.Ct. 1357, 25 L.Ed.2d 649 (1970); N. L. R. B. v. C&C Plywood Corp., 413 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1969); N. L. R. B. v. Luisi Truck Lines, 384 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 747, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962), and many other authorities, support our conclusion that the order of the Board must be enforced in full.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner asks us to review and set aside a decision and order of the respondent issued pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. (29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.). Respondent cross-petitions for a decree enforcing its order.

A discussion of the facts would add nothing to the existing law on the issues before us. After an examination of the entire record, we hold that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings: (1) that petitioner violated Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith with reference to wages; (2) that the March 4, 1968, strike was an unfair labor practice strike; (3) that petitioner violated Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by withdrawing recognition from the union on March 19, 1968, and (4) that petitioner unlawfully promised benefits to employees in return for their not supporting the union. N. L. R. B. v. Staub Cleaners, Inc., 418 F.2d 1086, 1089 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1038, 90 S.Ct. 1357, 25 L.Ed.2d 649 (1970); N. L. R. B. v. C&C Plywood Corp., 413 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1969); N. L. R. B. v. Luisi Truck Lines, 384 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 747, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230 (1962), and many other authorities, support our conclusion that the order of the Board must be enforced in full.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 1378, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2623, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alco-plating-corporation-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack