National Labor Relations Board v. Michael Benevento, D/B/A M. Benevento Sand & Gravel Company

First Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Michael Benevento, D/B/A M. Benevento Sand & Gravel Company

316 F.2d 224, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2871, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5590

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1963

Docket5849_1

StatusPublished

This text of 316 F.2d 224 (National Labor Relations Board v. Michael Benevento, D/B/A M. Benevento Sand & Gravel Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First 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. Michael Benevento, D/B/A M. Benevento Sand & Gravel Company, 316 F.2d 224, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2871, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5590 (1st Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODBURY, Chief Judge.

On December 29, 1961, we remanded this case to the Board for further proceedings because we felt that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s assertion of jurisdiction. See N. L. R. B. v. Benevento, 297 F.2d 873 (C.A.l, 1961). Pursuant to our remand the Board recommitted the case to a trial examiner who, after taking further evidence, filed a supplemental intermediate report wherein, on the facts as found, he concluded that during the year preceding the issuance of the complaint in this case the respondent’s “operations affected commerce within the meaning of the Act.” The Board affirmed and has again petitioned this court for enforcement of its original order.

The respondent has not challenged the findings of fact made by the trial examiner in his supplemental intermediate report and affirmed by the Board in its supplemental decision. We therefore accept the facts found as true. And on them it seems to us clear that the Board’s assertion of jurisdiction is well founded, particularly in view of the Per Curiam reversal by the Supreme Court of the United States, N. L. R. B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224, 83 S.Ct. 312, 9 L.Ed.2d 279 (1963), of N. L. R. B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 297 F.2d 94 (C. A.2, 1961), upon which we in part relied in our earlier opinion.

The Board in its original order found the respondent guilty of violations of § 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. We have reviewed the original record and briefs and, according due weight to the trial examiner’s and the Board’s resolutions of questions of credibility, it is quite apparent to us that there is substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole to support the Board’s findings of the above violations.

A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board.

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

WOODBURY, Chief Judge.

On December 29, 1961, we remanded this case to the Board for further proceedings because we felt that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s assertion of jurisdiction. See N. L. R. B. v. Benevento, 297 F.2d 873 (C.A.l, 1961). Pursuant to our remand the Board recommitted the case to a trial examiner who, after taking further evidence, filed a supplemental intermediate report wherein, on the facts as found, he concluded that during the year preceding the issuance of the complaint in this case the respondent’s “operations affected commerce within the meaning of the Act.” The Board affirmed and has again petitioned this court for enforcement of its original order.

The respondent has not challenged the findings of fact made by the trial examiner in his supplemental intermediate report and affirmed by the Board in its supplemental decision. We therefore accept the facts found as true. And on them it seems to us clear that the Board’s assertion of jurisdiction is well founded, particularly in view of the Per Curiam reversal by the Supreme Court of the United States, N. L. R. B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224, 83 S.Ct. 312, 9 L.Ed.2d 279 (1963), of N. L. R. B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 297 F.2d 94 (C. A.2, 1961), upon which we in part relied in our earlier opinion.

The Board in its original order found the respondent guilty of violations of § 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. We have reviewed the original record and briefs and, according due weight to the trial examiner’s and the Board’s resolutions of questions of credibility, it is quite apparent to us that there is substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole to support the Board’s findings of the above violations.

A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 F.2d 224, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2871, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-michael-benevento-dba-m-benevento-ca1-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack