National Labor Relations Board v. Samuel Cherico, Joseph Cherico, and Anthony Cherico, Doing Business as Clarion Fruit Company

Third Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Samuel Cherico, Joseph Cherico, and Anthony Cherico, Doing Business as Clarion Fruit Company

313 F.2d 633, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided February 27, 1963·No. 14064_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we are of the opinion that the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction; that substantial evidence supports its findings that the respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Board’s Order is valid and proper.

For the reasons stated the Board’s petition for enforcement will be granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

On review of the record we are of the opinion that the National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction; that substantial evidence supports its findings that the respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Board’s Order is valid and proper.

For the reasons stated the Board’s petition for enforcement will be granted.

National Labor Relations Board v. Samuel Cherico, Joseph Cherico, and Anthony Cherico, Doing Business as Clarion Fruit Company, 313 F.2d 633, 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2528 (3d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

313 F.2d 633 (National Labor Relations Board v. Samuel Cherico, Joseph Cherico, and Anthony Cherico, Doing Business as Clarion Fruit Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.