National Labor Relations Board v. F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc.

424 F.2d 1068, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3007, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9878

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 9, 1970·No. 28426·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

The National Labor Relations Board found that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29, U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., by refusing to bargain with International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers AFL-CIO, the certified exclusive representative of its employees. The sole issue on this petition for enforcement is whether the findings are supported by *1069 substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

There is ample record support for the Board’s findings that negotiations had not reached an impasse and that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) when it refused to bargain; accordingly, these findings may not be disturbed by us. N.L.R.B. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bread, Dallas, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 484; N.L.R.B. v. McLane Company, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 405 F.2d 483, 484, and N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 321.

All other contentions of respondent are without merit. The order of the Board is

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules of this Court, we have concluded on the merits that this case is of such character as not to justify oral argument and have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties in writing. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804, Part I; and Huth v. Southern Pacific Company, 5 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 526, Part I.

The National Labor Relations Board found that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, Title 29, U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., by refusing to bargain with International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers AFL-CIO, the certified exclusive representative of its employees. The sole issue on this petition for enforcement is whether the findings are supported by *1069 substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

There is ample record support for the Board’s findings that negotiations had not reached an impasse and that F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) when it refused to bargain; accordingly, these findings may not be disturbed by us. N.L.R.B. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bread, Dallas, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 484; N.L.R.B. v. McLane Company, Inc., 5 Cir. 1968, 405 F.2d 483, 484, and N.L.R.B. v. Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 5 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 321.

All other contentions of respondent are without merit. The order of the Board is

Enforced.

National Labor Relations Board v. F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc., 424 F.2d 1068, 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3007, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9878 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

424 F.2d 1068 (National Labor Relations Board v. F. A. Reynolds Co., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related