National Labor Relations Board v. Giallanza

Second Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Giallanza

208 F.2d 243, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3729

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 19, 1953

Docket86, Docket 22785

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 F.2d 243 (National Labor Relations Board v. Giallanza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Giallanza, 208 F.2d 243, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3729 (2d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board adopted in part the findings of the Trial Examiner, together with his conclusions and recommendations, and held that the respondent had discharged her employees, Zirkelbach, Kinnee, Wyckoff, Gerould, Carey, Coo-gan, Lodato, and Furlong, in violation of § 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq; that she had contributed to the support of, and dominated an association of her employees known as the Modern Cleaners Employees Association in violation of § 8 (a)(2) of the Act and thereby had interfered in violation of § 8(a)(1), with the exercise by her employees of their statutory rights. She was ordered to cease and desist; to offer said employees reinstatement and to make them whole for loss of pay; to disestablish the Modern Cleaners Employees as a collective bargaining representative of any of her employees and to post the usual notices.

The respondent has opposed this petition to enforce the order on the-ground that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the findings. A review of the record considered as a whole shows, however, that there is substantial evidence in support of the-Board’s findings though it is true that there was also conflicting evidence tending to show that at least the discharge of Zirkelbach was for cause. That be *244 ing so, the findings are now conclusive as the Taft-Hartley Act provides. 61 Stat. 148, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e).

That, in effect, disposes of the respondent’s resistance to the petition to enforce the order since the acts of the respondent, as found, were violations of the Act as held by the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co. Inc., 2 Cir., 130 F.2d 503; N. L. R. B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 817; N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831; American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; N. L. R. B. v. Charles R. Krimm Lumber Co., 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 194.

Order enforced.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Board adopted in part the findings of the Trial Examiner, together with his conclusions and recommendations, and held that the respondent had discharged her employees, Zirkelbach, Kinnee, Wyckoff, Gerould, Carey, Coo-gan, Lodato, and Furlong, in violation of § 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq; that she had contributed to the support of, and dominated an association of her employees known as the Modern Cleaners Employees Association in violation of § 8 (a)(2) of the Act and thereby had interfered in violation of § 8(a)(1), with the exercise by her employees of their statutory rights. She was ordered to cease and desist; to offer said employees reinstatement and to make them whole for loss of pay; to disestablish the Modern Cleaners Employees as a collective bargaining representative of any of her employees and to post the usual notices.

The respondent has opposed this petition to enforce the order on the-ground that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support the findings. A review of the record considered as a whole shows, however, that there is substantial evidence in support of the-Board’s findings though it is true that there was also conflicting evidence tending to show that at least the discharge of Zirkelbach was for cause. That be *244 ing so, the findings are now conclusive as the Taft-Hartley Act provides. 61 Stat. 148, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e).

That, in effect, disposes of the respondent’s resistance to the petition to enforce the order since the acts of the respondent, as found, were violations of the Act as held by the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co. Inc., 2 Cir., 130 F.2d 503; N. L. R. B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 3 Cir., 182 F.2d 817; N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831; American Enka Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 4 Cir., 119 F.2d 60; N. L. R. B. v. Charles R. Krimm Lumber Co., 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 194.

Order enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F.2d 243, 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-giallanza-ca2-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack