Judah Amc & Jeep, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Eighth Circuit

Judah Amc & Jeep, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

562 F.2d 1080, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2149, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11753

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided August 31, 1977·No. 76-2097·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judah AMC & Jeep, Inc., has petitioned this court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board filed December 10, 1976. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement.

After thoroughly reviewing the record we find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, that petitioner violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), by discriminatorily laying off and refusing to reinstate Stanley Strock because of his union and protected concerted activities. However, we find that the conclusion that petitioner violated § 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating Strock concerning a union meeting he attended is not substantiated. Therefore, we order that the Administrative Law Judge’s recommended order, adopted by the Board, with the exception of 1(a), be enforced. Each party shall pay its own costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judah AMC & Jeep, Inc., has petitioned this court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board filed December 10, 1976. The Board has cross-petitioned for enforcement.

After thoroughly reviewing the record we find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, that petitioner violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3), by discriminatorily laying off and refusing to reinstate Stanley Strock because of his union and protected concerted activities. However, we find that the conclusion that petitioner violated § 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating Strock concerning a union meeting he attended is not substantiated. Therefore, we order that the Administrative Law Judge’s recommended order, adopted by the Board, with the exception of 1(a), be enforced. Each party shall pay its own costs.

Judah Amc & Jeep, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 562 F.2d 1080, 96 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2149, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 11753 (8th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

562 F.2d 1080 (Judah Amc & Jeep, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related