National Labor Relations Board v. Hans J. Hvide

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Hans J. Hvide

315 F.2d 376, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2760, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 4, 1963

Docket19504

StatusPublished

This text of 315 F.2d 376 (National Labor Relations Board v. Hans J. Hvide) 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. Hans J. Hvide, 315 F.2d 376, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2760, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5674 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is ample evidence in the record as a whole to sustain the findings-of the Board that respondents discharged Joseph C. Moschetto because of his union membership and activities in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. There is also sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the Board that by this act and others testified to, respondents interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the act. We find no substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the respondents refused to bargain with the union which had been designated as a bargaining agent by a majority of the employees prior to the commencement of the proceedings now before the Court. This is so because the written notice which was intended to be sent to respondents demanding recognition and a bargaining session was not actually received by respondents until approximately the day before the date set by the employees seeking recognition. We think the failure to go forward with a meeting on such short notice could not under the circumstances here present constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (5).

The order of the Board will be enforced in all respects except as it relates, to the alleged violation of Section 8(a) (5) as to which enforcement is denied..

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

PER CURIAM.

There is ample evidence in the record as a whole to sustain the findings-of the Board that respondents discharged Joseph C. Moschetto because of his union membership and activities in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. There is also sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the Board that by this act and others testified to, respondents interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the act. We find no substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the respondents refused to bargain with the union which had been designated as a bargaining agent by a majority of the employees prior to the commencement of the proceedings now before the Court. This is so because the written notice which was intended to be sent to respondents demanding recognition and a bargaining session was not actually received by respondents until approximately the day before the date set by the employees seeking recognition. We think the failure to go forward with a meeting on such short notice could not under the circumstances here present constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (5).

The order of the Board will be enforced in all respects except as it relates, to the alleged violation of Section 8(a) (5) as to which enforcement is denied..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 F.2d 376, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2760, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-hans-j-hvide-ca5-1963.