National Labor Relations Board v. Lloyd J. Taylor, D/B/A Taylor Foundry Company

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Lloyd J. Taylor, D/B/A Taylor Foundry Company

338 F.2d 1003, 57 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2560, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3750

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided November 30, 1964·No. 21074_1·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this proceeding to enforce the Board’s order finding the Employer guilty of a § 8(a) (5) violation for failure to bargain by declining to furnish financial information, only two questions exist, neither of which presents any distinctive propositions of law. The first is the sufficiency of the evidence, NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 1956, 351 U.S. 149, 76 S.Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027, that the employer was claiming financial inability to meet the Union wage demands. The other was the question whether the Union’s reduced wage demand made a month later constituted a waiver. As to the first, it was a pure fact question and ends there. As to the second, bearing in *1004 mind the requirement that waiver of rights under the Act must be clearly established, NLRB v. Item Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 956, 958-959; cf. Sinclair Refg. Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 569, 575, the Board’s rejection of waiver was likewise sufficiently founded.

Enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this proceeding to enforce the Board’s order finding the Employer guilty of a § 8(a) (5) violation for failure to bargain by declining to furnish financial information, only two questions exist, neither of which presents any distinctive propositions of law. The first is the sufficiency of the evidence, NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 1956, 351 U.S. 149, 76 S.Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027, that the employer was claiming financial inability to meet the Union wage demands. The other was the question whether the Union’s reduced wage demand made a month later constituted a waiver. As to the first, it was a pure fact question and ends there. As to the second, bearing in *1004 mind the requirement that waiver of rights under the Act must be clearly established, NLRB v. Item Co., 5 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 956, 958-959; cf. Sinclair Refg. Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1962, 306 F.2d 569, 575, the Board’s rejection of waiver was likewise sufficiently founded.

Enforced.

National Labor Relations Board v. Lloyd J. Taylor, D/B/A Taylor Foundry Company, 338 F.2d 1003, 57 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2560, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3750 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

338 F.2d 1003 (National Labor Relations Board v. Lloyd J. Taylor, D/B/A Taylor Foundry Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Local Union 14534 v. National Labor Relations Board, Concrete Pipe and Products Corp.--Syracuse Division, Intervenor, Concrete Pipe and Products Corp.--Syracuse Division v. National Labor Relations Board, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Local Union 14534, Intervenor

983 F.2d 240 (D.C. Circuit, 1993)

United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 14534 v. National Labor Relations Board

983 F.2d 240 (D.C. Circuit, 1993)

The Mead Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

697 F.2d 1013 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)

Nadal v. Puerto Rico Tourist Development Co.

399 F. Supp. 1222 (D. Puerto Rico, 1975)

National Labor Relations Board v. Union Carbide Caribe Inc.

423 F.2d 231 (First Circuit, 1970)

National Labor Relations Board v. Western Wirebound Box Co.

356 F.2d 88 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)

Opinion

Related