Continental Can Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Third Circuit

Continental Can Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

352 F.2d 302, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2309, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4254

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1965

Docket15223

StatusPublished

This text of 352 F.2d 302 (Continental Can Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Continental Can Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 352 F.2d 302, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2309, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4254 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This litigation is before us for the second time. In its first appearance here review was sought of the Board’s order dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint based upon the then petitioner’s charges that he and several other employees had been wrongfully discharged by the employer, the present petitioner. After the original hearing, the Trial Examiner concluded that the discharges involved were discriminatorily motivated. Those evidentiary findings were adopted by the Board but the latter concluded that the employees were discharged for fighting. The Board therefore dismissed the complaint of unfair labor practice against the employer. In our opinion, Greco v. N. L. R. B., et als., 331 F.2d 165, 166 (3 Cir. 1964), we found that the Examiner’s findings of fact, adopted by the Board as to the circumstances surrounding the discharges, “ * * * are based upon substantial evidence * * We held p. 169 that “In our view, these findings clearly preclude any inference that the employees were discharged for fighting. On the contrary, the mere recitation of them compels only one conclusion, that the discharges were discriminatorily motivated.” We decided that, since the findings of fact adopted by the Board did not support its conclusion that the discharges were not discriminatory, its conclusion could not stand. The cause was remanded to the Board for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion.

*303 The Board thereafter reconsidered the matter, vacated its original order and adopted “not only the findings, but also the conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner”. The proceedings are now before us on the petition of the employer to review the action of the Board in determining that the employer had discharged the employees in question because of their opposition to the union’s leadership. As we held in our prior opinion and as we reiterate from our own current second examination of the record, the Board’s findings in that regard are •supported by substantial evidence on the whole case. That part of the Board’s order concerning back pay, including the interest allowed, is well within its discretion.

The petition for review will be denied. The order of the Board will be enforced in full. A proposed decree may be submitted by the Board.

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

PER CURIAM.

This litigation is before us for the second time. In its first appearance here review was sought of the Board’s order dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint based upon the then petitioner’s charges that he and several other employees had been wrongfully discharged by the employer, the present petitioner. After the original hearing, the Trial Examiner concluded that the discharges involved were discriminatorily motivated. Those evidentiary findings were adopted by the Board but the latter concluded that the employees were discharged for fighting. The Board therefore dismissed the complaint of unfair labor practice against the employer. In our opinion, Greco v. N. L. R. B., et als., 331 F.2d 165, 166 (3 Cir. 1964), we found that the Examiner’s findings of fact, adopted by the Board as to the circumstances surrounding the discharges, “ * * * are based upon substantial evidence * * We held p. 169 that “In our view, these findings clearly preclude any inference that the employees were discharged for fighting. On the contrary, the mere recitation of them compels only one conclusion, that the discharges were discriminatorily motivated.” We decided that, since the findings of fact adopted by the Board did not support its conclusion that the discharges were not discriminatory, its conclusion could not stand. The cause was remanded to the Board for further proceedings in conformity with our opinion.

*303 The Board thereafter reconsidered the matter, vacated its original order and adopted “not only the findings, but also the conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner”. The proceedings are now before us on the petition of the employer to review the action of the Board in determining that the employer had discharged the employees in question because of their opposition to the union’s leadership. As we held in our prior opinion and as we reiterate from our own current second examination of the record, the Board’s findings in that regard are •supported by substantial evidence on the whole case. That part of the Board’s order concerning back pay, including the interest allowed, is well within its discretion.

The petition for review will be denied. The order of the Board will be enforced in full. A proposed decree may be submitted by the Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 F.2d 302, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2309, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-can-company-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack