National Labor Relations Board v. La-Z-Boy Tennessee

623 F.2d 20, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2505, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16568
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 17, 1980
Docket18-3373
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 623 F.2d 20 (National Labor Relations Board v. La-Z-Boy Tennessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. La-Z-Boy Tennessee, 623 F.2d 20, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2505, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16568 (6th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

ORDER

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) has applied to this court for enforcement of its order against La-Z-Boy Tennessee (Company) reported at 233 NLRB No. 185 which found that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq. by coercively interrogating some of its employees concerning their union activities and sympathies and further found that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to rehire Ferrell Hensley and Freddy Johnson, by imposing more onerous working conditions upon Bill Scott, by discharging Leona Hensley and by discharging Betty Jo McClenda because of their union sympathies and activities.

The principal issue in the case is whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.

We have held that coercive interrogation of employees about their union sympathies or activities violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Jervis Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 387 F.2d 107, 111 (6th Cir. 1967).

Where there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s inferences of unlawful motivation, it is not our province to discard the Board’s choice between two conflicting views even though we might have arrived at a different conclusion if we were considering the matter de novo. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

*21 We are of the opinion that the Board’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not unlawful.

It is therefore ordered that the order of the Board be and it is hereby enforced.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
623 F.2d 20, 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2505, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-la-z-boy-tennessee-ca6-1980.