National Labor Relations Board v. Muncy Corporation

Sixth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Muncy Corporation

519 F.2d 169, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1975

Docket74-2220

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 519 F.2d 169 (National Labor Relations Board v. Muncy Corporation) 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. Muncy Corporation, 519 F.2d 169, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13710 (6th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

There is before the Court for consideration an application by the petitioner for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board dated June 10, 1974, and reported at 211 N.L.R.B. No. 30. The issues presented all involve sufficiency of the evidence questions, and in each area of concern the Board approved and adopted the findings of the administrative law judge.

Specifically, we are required to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings that the Company interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act; that the Company refused to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; and that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by *170 refusing to reinstate and by discharging unfair labor practice strikers because of their union activities.

As is not infrequently the case, we are confronted with a situation in which the administrative law judge chose to discredit the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner and to credit those of the Union, but we conclude that it cannot be said that there is not sufficient testimony in the record to support the findings of fact adopted by the Board. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

Enforcement of the order is granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

There is before the Court for consideration an application by the petitioner for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board dated June 10, 1974, and reported at 211 N.L.R.B. No. 30. The issues presented all involve sufficiency of the evidence questions, and in each area of concern the Board approved and adopted the findings of the administrative law judge.

Specifically, we are required to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings that the Company interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act; that the Company refused to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; and that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by *170 refusing to reinstate and by discharging unfair labor practice strikers because of their union activities.

As is not infrequently the case, we are confronted with a situation in which the administrative law judge chose to discredit the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner and to credit those of the Union, but we conclude that it cannot be said that there is not sufficient testimony in the record to support the findings of fact adopted by the Board. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

Enforcement of the order is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 F.2d 169, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-muncy-corporation-ca6-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack