National Labor Relations Board v. Autotronics, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Autotronics, Inc.

434 F.2d 651, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2121, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1970

Docket20170

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 434 F.2d 651 (National Labor Relations Board v. Autotronics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Autotronics, Inc., 434 F.2d 651, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2121, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6105 (8th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding substantial evidence from the record as a whole, we grant enforcement of the Board’s order against Autotronics, Inc. arising from the company’s violations of § 8(a) (1) and § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.

It is alleged by way of answer to the Board’s application for enforcement of its order that the company has undergone Chapter XI pi'oceedings in the district court and that new ownership and management have resulted. This fact does not alter this court’s jurisdiction to review the merits of the Board’s order or to consider enforcement of it. Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100, 62 S.Ct. 452, 86 L.Ed. 718 (1942). The Board may, if necessary, consider in a subsequent proceeding whether it is impossible for the employer against whom the Board’s order now runs to comply with enforcement. Cf. NLRB v. Aircraft Engineering Corp., 419 F.2d 1303, 1304 (8 Cir. 1970). And see Cap Santa Vue, Inc. v. NLRB, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 424 F.2d 883 (1970); NLRB v. Kostilnik, 405 F.2d 733 (3 Cir. 1969); Webb Tractor & Equip. Co., 181 N.L.R.B. No. 39 (1970).

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding substantial evidence from the record as a whole, we grant enforcement of the Board’s order against Autotronics, Inc. arising from the company’s violations of § 8(a) (1) and § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act.

It is alleged by way of answer to the Board’s application for enforcement of its order that the company has undergone Chapter XI pi'oceedings in the district court and that new ownership and management have resulted. This fact does not alter this court’s jurisdiction to review the merits of the Board’s order or to consider enforcement of it. Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 100, 62 S.Ct. 452, 86 L.Ed. 718 (1942). The Board may, if necessary, consider in a subsequent proceeding whether it is impossible for the employer against whom the Board’s order now runs to comply with enforcement. Cf. NLRB v. Aircraft Engineering Corp., 419 F.2d 1303, 1304 (8 Cir. 1970). And see Cap Santa Vue, Inc. v. NLRB, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 424 F.2d 883 (1970); NLRB v. Kostilnik, 405 F.2d 733 (3 Cir. 1969); Webb Tractor & Equip. Co., 181 N.L.R.B. No. 39 (1970).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 651, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2121, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-autotronics-inc-ca8-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack