National Labor Relations Board v. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc.

353 F.2d 287, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3807

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1965

Docket22060_1

StatusPublished

This text of 353 F.2d 287 (National Labor Relations Board v. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 v. Affiliated Food Stores, Inc., 353 F.2d 287, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3807 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There being an abundance of evidence to support the Board decision that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158 (a) (3) and (1), in discharging employee Gordy, the order insofar as it is based on his discharge will be enforced.

The absence of substantial evidence to support the claimed Section 8(a) (1) violation, 29 U.S.C.A., Section 158(a) (1), based on the interrogation of employee Calloway requires that we deny enforcement of the order as it relates to this conduct. The evidence falls far short of that in N. L. R. B. v. Harbinson-Fisher Manufacturing Co., (5 Cir. 1962) 304 F.2d 738, and that case, we think, represents the outerlimits of the application of interference as it is proscribed in Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The circumstances of the questioning tended toward coercion there but not here.

Enforced in part; denied in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

There being an abundance of evidence to support the Board decision that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158 (a) (3) and (1), in discharging employee Gordy, the order insofar as it is based on his discharge will be enforced.

The absence of substantial evidence to support the claimed Section 8(a) (1) violation, 29 U.S.C.A., Section 158(a) (1), based on the interrogation of employee Calloway requires that we deny enforcement of the order as it relates to this conduct. The evidence falls far short of that in N. L. R. B. v. Harbinson-Fisher Manufacturing Co., (5 Cir. 1962) 304 F.2d 738, and that case, we think, represents the outerlimits of the application of interference as it is proscribed in Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The circumstances of the questioning tended toward coercion there but not here.

Enforced in part; denied in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 F.2d 287, 60 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 3807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-affiliated-food-stores-inc-ca5-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack