National Labor Relations Board v. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc.

378 F.2d 443, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2511, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1967

Docket23826_1

StatusPublished

This text of 378 F.2d 443 (National Labor Relations Board v. Dal-Tex Optical Company, 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. Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 378 F.2d 443, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2511, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The question presented in this matter is whether there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the findings and conclusions of the Board. We hold that the evidence warrants the findings that respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158(a) (1), through interrogation of an employee concerning union activity, surveillance of a union meeting, instituting changes in working *444 conditions, and threats of reprisal against employees because of union activity. The evidence is also ample to support the findings that the discharges of employees Smith, Hicks, Cross, Darland, Kleinberg and Fuentes were motivated by antiunion purposes and were thus in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158(a) (1), (3).

The order of the Board is thus due to be, and it will be

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The question presented in this matter is whether there is substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the findings and conclusions of the Board. We hold that the evidence warrants the findings that respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158(a) (1), through interrogation of an employee concerning union activity, surveillance of a union meeting, instituting changes in working *444 conditions, and threats of reprisal against employees because of union activity. The evidence is also ample to support the findings that the discharges of employees Smith, Hicks, Cross, Darland, Kleinberg and Fuentes were motivated by antiunion purposes and were thus in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. Section 158(a) (1), (3).

The order of the Board is thus due to be, and it will be

Enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 F.2d 443, 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2511, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-dal-tex-optical-company-inc-ca5-1967.