National Labor Relations Board v. Itt Hanze Valve Service, Controls and Instrument Division, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Itt Hanze Valve Service, Controls and Instrument Division, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation

435 F.2d 1308, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 14, 1971

Docket28607_1

StatusPublished

This text of 435 F.2d 1308 (National Labor Relations Board v. Itt Hanze Valve Service, Controls and Instrument Division, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation) 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. Itt Hanze Valve Service, Controls and Instrument Division, International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, 435 F.2d 1308, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12385 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Although the proof was not overwhelming, we conclude that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings: that the respondent did not bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act; that the strike which occurred on April 27, 1966, was caused by unfair labor practices, as defined by the Act; that the respondent instituted a work rule change without notice to the Union for the purpose cf. discouraging Union activity, and in violation of Section 8(a) (5), (3) and (1) of the Act; that the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that the respondent terminated and refused to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act; and that, therefore, the order of the Board will be enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

Although the proof was not overwhelming, we conclude that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings: that the respondent did not bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act; that the strike which occurred on April 27, 1966, was caused by unfair labor practices, as defined by the Act; that the respondent instituted a work rule change without notice to the Union for the purpose cf. discouraging Union activity, and in violation of Section 8(a) (5), (3) and (1) of the Act; that the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that the respondent terminated and refused to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act; and that, therefore, the order of the Board will be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 F.2d 1308, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 12385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-itt-hanze-valve-service-controls-and-ca5-1971.