Farah Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Fifth Circuit

Farah Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

450 F.2d 942

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 13, 1971·No. Nos. 71-1097, 71-1688·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

There is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s conclusion that the company violated Sections 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by interrogating and then discharging an employee, and by promulgating and maintaining plant rules prohibiting solicitation, distribution and access to other areas, Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951), and it appears that the Board did not improperly apply the standards set forth in N. L. R. B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956), in determining that the company did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by denying non-employee organizees access to its premises.

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

There is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s conclusion that the company violated Sections 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by interrogating and then discharging an employee, and by promulgating and maintaining plant rules prohibiting solicitation, distribution and access to other areas, Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951), and it appears that the Board did not improperly apply the standards set forth in N. L. R. B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956), in determining that the company did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by denying non-employee organizees access to its premises.

Enforced.

Farah Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 450 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

450 F.2d 942 (Farah Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related