BI-LO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

Fourth Circuit

BI-LO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent

386 F.2d 834, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 1967

Docket11351_1

StatusPublished

This text of 386 F.2d 834 (BI-LO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BI-LO, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, 386 F.2d 834, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305 (4th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petition of Bi-Lo, Inc., operator of a retail food store chain in and around Greenville, South Carolina, states it is aggrieved by a final order of the National Labor Relations Board, 163 NLRB No. 138, April 12, 1967, and asks that it be set aside. Section 10(f) Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (f). The Board’s answer prays the order’s enforcement. We think the Board should prevail.

As a whole, the evidence cannot be appraised as failing to furnish substantial undergirding for the Board’s findings and conclusions. It found undue inquisition and surveillance of the employees’ union interest, and the firing of three employees for union sponsorship. Denials of these charges — originated by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 442, AFL-CIO — were made, but the Board resolved all the traverses against the employer. Within the Board’s prerogative, the decision cannot now be disturbed.

Order enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The petition of Bi-Lo, Inc., operator of a retail food store chain in and around Greenville, South Carolina, states it is aggrieved by a final order of the National Labor Relations Board, 163 NLRB No. 138, April 12, 1967, and asks that it be set aside. Section 10(f) Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (f). The Board’s answer prays the order’s enforcement. We think the Board should prevail.

As a whole, the evidence cannot be appraised as failing to furnish substantial undergirding for the Board’s findings and conclusions. It found undue inquisition and surveillance of the employees’ union interest, and the firing of three employees for union sponsorship. Denials of these charges — originated by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 442, AFL-CIO — were made, but the Board resolved all the traverses against the employer. Within the Board’s prerogative, the decision cannot now be disturbed.

Order enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 F.2d 834, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bi-lo-inc-petitioner-v-national-labor-relations-board-respondent-ca4-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack