International Union of Electrical v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. Circuit

International Union of Electrical v. National Labor Relations Board

650 F.2d 334, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3344, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 634

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 1980

Docket79-1654, 79-1864 and 79-2562

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 650 F.2d 334 (International Union of Electrical v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Union of Electrical v. National Labor Relations Board, 650 F.2d 334, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3344, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 634 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

These causes came on to be heard on petitions for review and cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and were argued by counsel. While the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the court. See Local Rule 13(c).

The order of the National Labor Relations Board is supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Moreover, this court finds that the Board’s order is otherwise free from reversible legal error.

On consideration of the foregoing, generally for the reasons stated in the Board’s order, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the petitions for review are hereby denied and the cross-application for enforcement is hereby granted.

MARKEY, Chief Judge, dissents from the foregoing order for the reasons stated in the following dissenting opinion.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

These causes came on to be heard on petitions for review and cross-application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board and were argued by counsel. While the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the court. See Local Rule 13(c).

The order of the National Labor Relations Board is supported by substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Moreover, this court finds that the Board’s order is otherwise free from reversible legal error.

On consideration of the foregoing, generally for the reasons stated in the Board’s order, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the petitions for review are hereby denied and the cross-application for enforcement is hereby granted.

MARKEY, Chief Judge, dissents from the foregoing order for the reasons stated in the following dissenting opinion.

International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio-Clc v. National Labor Relations Board, White Farm Equipment Company, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. White Farm Equipment Company, a Subsidiary of White Motor Corporation, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio-Clc, Intervenor. White Farm Equipment Company, a Subsidiary of White Motor Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio-Clc, Intervenor

650 F.2d 334 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F.2d 334, 209 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3344, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11893, 24 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-union-of-electrical-v-national-labor-relations-board-cadc-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack