National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Textile Products Company, Inc.

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Textile Products Company, Inc.

422 F.2d 1255, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1970

Docket19663_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 1255 (National Labor Relations Board v. Automotive Textile Products Company, Inc.) 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 v. Automotive Textile Products Company, Inc., 422 F.2d 1255, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418 (6th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order in a matter involving alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board’s order is reported at 171 NLRB, No. 157. The charged violations consisted of resistance to an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America to bring into that union the employees of the company; alleged coercive interrogation of employees ; threats of reprisal such as closing down the plant; and granting vacation pay to employees to discourage support of the union. We find that there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s order.

Respondent also complains of the denial of its request for a Bill oLParticulars prior to the hearing, and refusal to permit examination of affidavits or statements made by certain persons to the Board. We are satisfied that no prejudice was visited upon the respondent through failure to provide a Bill of Particulars. Consumers Power v. NLRB, 113 F.2d 38, 42-43 (6th Cir. 1940). We find no error in the refusal of the trial examiner to provide, in advance of trfal, affidavits and statements given by witnesses who were to be called by the General Counsel. Raser Tanning v. NLRB, 276 F.2d 80-83 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524. At the hearing, respondent’s counsel was allowed, for purposes of cross-examination, to examine affidavits and statements of witnesses who had testified.

We find without merit the respondent’s contention that the Board’s order should not be enforced because *1257 changes in its work force have occurred since the institution of this proceeding; likewise, bias of the trial examiner has not been demonstrated to such a degree as to vitiate his decision. See NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 93 L.Ed. 1602 (1949).

It is ordered that the order of the Board heretofore entered in this cause be, and it is, hereby enforced.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order in a matter involving alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board’s order is reported at 171 NLRB, No. 157. The charged violations consisted of resistance to an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America to bring into that union the employees of the company; alleged coercive interrogation of employees ; threats of reprisal such as closing down the plant; and granting vacation pay to employees to discourage support of the union. We find that there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s order.

Respondent also complains of the denial of its request for a Bill oLParticulars prior to the hearing, and refusal to permit examination of affidavits or statements made by certain persons to the Board. We are satisfied that no prejudice was visited upon the respondent through failure to provide a Bill of Particulars. Consumers Power v. NLRB, 113 F.2d 38, 42-43 (6th Cir. 1940). We find no error in the refusal of the trial examiner to provide, in advance of trfal, affidavits and statements given by witnesses who were to be called by the General Counsel. Raser Tanning v. NLRB, 276 F.2d 80-83 (6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524. At the hearing, respondent’s counsel was allowed, for purposes of cross-examination, to examine affidavits and statements of witnesses who had testified.

We find without merit the respondent’s contention that the Board’s order should not be enforced because *1257 changes in its work force have occurred since the institution of this proceeding; likewise, bias of the trial examiner has not been demonstrated to such a degree as to vitiate his decision. See NLRB v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 337 U.S. 656, 659, 69 S.Ct. 1283, 93 L.Ed. 1602 (1949).

It is ordered that the order of the Board heretofore entered in this cause be, and it is, hereby enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F.2d 1255, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2813, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-automotive-textile-products-company-inc-ca6-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack