National Labor Relations Board v. Economy Furniture

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Economy Furniture

284 F.2d 339, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2120, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3246

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1960

Docket18344

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 F.2d 339 (National Labor Relations Board v. Economy Furniture) 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. Economy Furniture, 284 F.2d 339, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2120, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3246 (5th Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board after a hearing found that the Employer had violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 3). Once it is determined, as we do, that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to sustain the Board’s finding as to the status of Pound as a supervisor, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(11) (1956); N. L. R. B. v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 159, 161, since he was a person invested with authority effectively to recommend action in the hiring, transfer, promotion or discharge of employees, there can be no real dispute as to the further conclusion ofa§8(a) (1) violation. The evidence was adequate to warrant the Board’s inference that through Pound the Employer engaged in anti-union interrogation and activities including requests that certain employees withdraw from the union. N. L. R. B. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381, 384; N. L. R. B. v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 556, 557; N. L. R. B. v. West Point Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 783, 785. Likewise, it is a question of fact as to whether the Employee Gonzales was discharged as found by the Board or voluntarily terminated her employment as claimed by the Employer, and if discharged whether this was done because of the union activities of such Employee. Statements made by a responsible executive officer of the Employer shortly after termination of the employment furnished an adequate basis for the Board’s finding that it was a discharge for union activity. The question is not what this Court would do were the matter committed to us initially. Our function ceases when we find substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the Board considering the record as a whole. N. L. R. B. v. Ferguson, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 88, 93.

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Board after a hearing found that the Employer had violated Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1, 3). Once it is determined, as we do, that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to sustain the Board’s finding as to the status of Pound as a supervisor, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(11) (1956); N. L. R. B. v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 159, 161, since he was a person invested with authority effectively to recommend action in the hiring, transfer, promotion or discharge of employees, there can be no real dispute as to the further conclusion ofa§8(a) (1) violation. The evidence was adequate to warrant the Board’s inference that through Pound the Employer engaged in anti-union interrogation and activities including requests that certain employees withdraw from the union. N. L. R. B. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 274 F.2d 381, 384; N. L. R. B. v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 556, 557; N. L. R. B. v. West Point Mfg. Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 783, 785. Likewise, it is a question of fact as to whether the Employee Gonzales was discharged as found by the Board or voluntarily terminated her employment as claimed by the Employer, and if discharged whether this was done because of the union activities of such Employee. Statements made by a responsible executive officer of the Employer shortly after termination of the employment furnished an adequate basis for the Board’s finding that it was a discharge for union activity. The question is not what this Court would do were the matter committed to us initially. Our function ceases when we find substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the Board considering the record as a whole. N. L. R. B. v. Ferguson, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 88, 93.

Enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 F.2d 339, 47 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2120, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-economy-furniture-ca5-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack