G. C. Murphy Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Retail Store Employees Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

Fourth Circuit

G. C. Murphy Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Retail Store Employees Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

550 F.2d 1004, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3040, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 1977

Docket76-1470

StatusPublished

This text of 550 F.2d 1004 (G. C. Murphy Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Retail Store Employees Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Intervenor) 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

G. C. Murphy Company v. National Labor Relations Board, Retail Store Employees Union, Local 400, Afl-Cio, Intervenor, 550 F.2d 1004, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3040, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14367 (4th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The issue in this case is whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the G. C. Murphy Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The company was charged with (1) creating the impression that an employee’s union activities were under surveillance, (2) threatening to close its Rock-ville, Maryland store if the union won the election, and (3) cancelling previously prepared wage increase requisitions and refusing to proceed with its annual employee wage review procedure because of the union’s organizational campaign.

We have examined the record and find substantial evidentiary basis to support the NLRB’s decision in those three respects.

In this case, the union sent a letter to the company assuring it that no charges would be filed by the union if the company wished to grant employee wage increases during the pendency of the union’s organization effort. For this reason, the employer had no ground to fear that granting wage increases at that time would provoke an unfair labor practice charge.

The decision of the Board is accordingly

ENFORCED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The issue in this case is whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that the G. C. Murphy Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The company was charged with (1) creating the impression that an employee’s union activities were under surveillance, (2) threatening to close its Rock-ville, Maryland store if the union won the election, and (3) cancelling previously prepared wage increase requisitions and refusing to proceed with its annual employee wage review procedure because of the union’s organizational campaign.

We have examined the record and find substantial evidentiary basis to support the NLRB’s decision in those three respects.

In this case, the union sent a letter to the company assuring it that no charges would be filed by the union if the company wished to grant employee wage increases during the pendency of the union’s organization effort. For this reason, the employer had no ground to fear that granting wage increases at that time would provoke an unfair labor practice charge.

The decision of the Board is accordingly

ENFORCED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 F.2d 1004, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3040, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-c-murphy-company-v-national-labor-relations-board-retail-store-ca4-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack