National Labor Relations Board v. Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets

Eighth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets

611 F.2d 1225, 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2103, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9848

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided December 10, 1979·No. 79-1389·Published

Opinion

ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT

The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for the enforcement of its order against Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, copartners, d/b/a Anderson Cabinets. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 241 NLRB No. 72,100 L.R.R.M. 1606 (1979). After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that Robert Rhyneer was a supervisory employee and that the employer violated § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), by preparing, circulating and filing a petition seeking to decertify the Carpenters *1226 District Council of Greater St. Louis, AFL-CIO, and by withdrawing recognition from the Carpenters in reliance upon this employer-sponsored petition.

There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that the Company violated § 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), by discharging Floyd Wildhaber who participated in a strike of the Carpenters against the Company in protest of the unlawful withdrawal of recognition and that it violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by various acts of interference.

Accordingly, we enforce the Board’s order.

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

ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT

The National Labor Relations Board petitioned for the enforcement of its order against Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, copartners, d/b/a Anderson Cabinets. The Board’s decision and order are reported at 241 NLRB No. 72,100 L.R.R.M. 1606 (1979). After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that Robert Rhyneer was a supervisory employee and that the employer violated § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5), by preparing, circulating and filing a petition seeking to decertify the Carpenters *1226 District Council of Greater St. Louis, AFL-CIO, and by withdrawing recognition from the Carpenters in reliance upon this employer-sponsored petition.

There is also substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that the Company violated § 8(a)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), by discharging Floyd Wildhaber who participated in a strike of the Carpenters against the Company in protest of the unlawful withdrawal of recognition and that it violated § 8(a)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), by various acts of interference.

Accordingly, we enforce the Board’s order.

National Labor Relations Board v. Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets, 611 F.2d 1225, 103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2103, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9848 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

611 F.2d 1225 (National Labor Relations Board v. Robert E. Anderson and Richard E. Anderson, Copartners, D/B/A Anderson Cabinets) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related