National Labor Relations Board v. Sumter Plywood Corporation

565 F.2d 379, 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2360, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13197
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 1978
Docket77-1945
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 565 F.2d 379 (National Labor Relations Board v. Sumter Plywood Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Sumter Plywood Corporation, 565 F.2d 379, 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2360, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13197 (5th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) seeks enforcement of its order requiring Sumter Plywood Corporation to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices; to refrain from “in any other manner” interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights granted to them by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 157 (1970); to reinstate, with back pay, unlawfully discharged employees; and to post appropriate notices. The Board found that Sumter violated section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (1970), by threatening permanently to replace unfair labor practice strikers if they continued to strike rather than return to work and that Sumter violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and (1) (1970), by refusing to reinstate unfair labor practice striker Pearline Foster. In addition, the Board found a second violation of section 8(a)(3) and (1) in Sumter’s discharge of employee Barbara Ward because of her union activities.

We find that the Board’s order rests upon substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole and, accordingly, the order must be enforced. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 489-91, 71 S.Ct. 456, 463-66, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1957). Sumter questions the breadth of the Board’s order which requires Sumter to refrain from “in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.” This provision is appropriate and entitled to enforcement, particularly in light of Sumter’s demonstrated hostility to the union and its commission of similar violations of the NLRA in the past. See NLRB v. Florida Steel Corp., 544 F.2d 896, 898 (5th Cir. 1977). 1

ENFORCED.

1

. Sumter has been before this court on charges of NLRA violations on two other occasions. In 1975, we enforced a Board order based on a finding that Sumter had violated section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by interrogating employee Ward and that it had violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Ward and two other employees because of their union activities. NLRB v. Sumter Plywood Corp., 509 F.2d 574 (5th Cir. 1975). A year later, we enforced a Board order based on a finding that Sumter had violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1) (1970), by refusing to bargain with the union. NLRB v. Sumter Plywood Corp., 535 F.2d 917 (5th Cir. 1976).

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

Related

Cagle's, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
588 F.2d 943 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
565 F.2d 379, 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2360, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 13197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-sumter-plywood-corporation-ca5-1978.