National Labor Relations Board v. Art Metalcraft Plating Co., Inc.

Third Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Art Metalcraft Plating Co., Inc.

303 F.2d 478, 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2254, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1962

Docket13880_1

StatusPublished

This text of 303 F.2d 478 (National Labor Relations Board v. Art Metalcraft Plating Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third 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. Art Metalcraft Plating Co., Inc., 303 F.2d 478, 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2254, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042 (3d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is not contested here that (1) Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 5) by refusing to bargain upon request with the Union at a time when the latter represented a majority of Respondent’s employees in an appropriate unit and (2) that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as amended by threatening to close its plant in reprisal for its employees’ union interest and activity.

The record in this proceeding gives firm support for the decision of the Board that Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act as amended by the layoff of three employees and the discharge of eight other employees to prevent unionization of its plant. Substantial evidence in the record also justifies the Board’s finding (and its consequent back pay order) that the Respondent did not unconditionally offer reinstatement to the employees involved until July 22, 1960.

The order of the Board will be enforced. A proposed decree to that effect may be submitted.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is not contested here that (1) Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 5) by refusing to bargain upon request with the Union at a time when the latter represented a majority of Respondent’s employees in an appropriate unit and (2) that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act as amended by threatening to close its plant in reprisal for its employees’ union interest and activity.

The record in this proceeding gives firm support for the decision of the Board that Respondent had violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act as amended by the layoff of three employees and the discharge of eight other employees to prevent unionization of its plant. Substantial evidence in the record also justifies the Board’s finding (and its consequent back pay order) that the Respondent did not unconditionally offer reinstatement to the employees involved until July 22, 1960.

The order of the Board will be enforced. A proposed decree to that effect may be submitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 F.2d 478, 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2254, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-art-metalcraft-plating-co-inc-ca3-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack