National Labor Relations Board, and v. Spranger Spring Company, And

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board, and v. Spranger Spring Company, And

309 F.2d 139, 51 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2374, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 1962

Docket14830_1

StatusPublished

This text of 309 F.2d 139 (National Labor Relations Board, and v. Spranger Spring Company, And) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Labor Relations Board, and v. Spranger Spring Company, And, 309 F.2d 139, 51 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2374, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813 (6th Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question in this case is whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence. The Board found that the employer coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by interrogating them concerning their union activities and sympathies, by threatening to close the plant and by granting -wage increases which were intended to discourage union activity. The Board further found that the discharge of the employees Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser was on account of their union membership and activities and violated the Act.

The Trial Examiner, whose intermediate report appears on forty-eight pages of the printed record, gave careful consideration to the conflicting evidence in the case. The Board’s order was in conformity with his findings. On the basis of the evidence which he credited, we think substantially existed. We are, therefore, required to enforce the Board’s order.

Enforcement granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question in this case is whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence. The Board found that the employer coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) by interrogating them concerning their union activities and sympathies, by threatening to close the plant and by granting -wage increases which were intended to discourage union activity. The Board further found that the discharge of the employees Edward Cackowski and Adam Kreuzwieser was on account of their union membership and activities and violated the Act.

The Trial Examiner, whose intermediate report appears on forty-eight pages of the printed record, gave careful consideration to the conflicting evidence in the case. The Board’s order was in conformity with his findings. On the basis of the evidence which he credited, we think substantially existed. We are, therefore, required to enforce the Board’s order.

Enforcement granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F.2d 139, 51 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2374, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-and-v-spranger-spring-company-and-ca6-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack