Fwg Corporation and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division v. National Labor Relations Board

Eighth Circuit

Fwg Corporation and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division v. National Labor Relations Board

433 F.2d 450

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1970

Docket19964

StatusPublished

This text of 433 F.2d 450 (Fwg Corporation and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fwg Corporation and Dyson-Kissner Corporation, Northwest Automatic Products Division v. National Labor Relations Board, 433 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on the petition of the company to review and on the. National Labor Relations Board’s cross-application to enforce an order of the Board issued on September 24, 1969. The Board’s decision and order is reported at 178 N.L.R.B. No. 99, 72 LRRM 1365 (1969).

We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs and find that there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by denying reemployment to two employees, Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman, because of their Union activity. We, thus, enforce the Board’s order insofar as it affects them.

We are not convinced, however, that the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by “accusing” employee Melvin Kotula of instigating the Union organizing campaign. In our view, the employer’s statement to Kotula contained no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit and was thus protected under Section 8(c) of the Act.

We remand to the Board for action consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on the petition of the company to review and on the. National Labor Relations Board’s cross-application to enforce an order of the Board issued on September 24, 1969. The Board’s decision and order is reported at 178 N.L.R.B. No. 99, 72 LRRM 1365 (1969).

We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs and find that there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by denying reemployment to two employees, Lois Nalezny and Geraldine Sodman, because of their Union activity. We, thus, enforce the Board’s order insofar as it affects them.

We are not convinced, however, that the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by “accusing” employee Melvin Kotula of instigating the Union organizing campaign. In our view, the employer’s statement to Kotula contained no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit and was thus protected under Section 8(c) of the Act.

We remand to the Board for action consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fwg-corporation-and-dyson-kissner-corporation-northwest-automatic-products-ca8-1970.