National Labor Relations Board v. The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division

445 F.2d 901

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1971

Docket26168_1

StatusPublished

This text of 445 F.2d 901 (National Labor Relations Board v. The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. The Deutsch Company, Electronic Components Division, 445 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*902 PER CURIAM:

The Board has petitioned for the enforcement of its order relating to the Oceanside plant of the respondent. The Board issued an opinion, reported at 180 NLRB No. 1 (December 12, 1969).

The thrust of the respondent’s opposition to the petition for enforcement is that the Board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The record is replete with testimony which clearly establishes respondent’s multiple violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Similarly, the Board’s findings with regard to the violations of Section 8(a) (3) are supported by inferences drawn from the evidence. Contrary to respondent’s view, these inferences are neither unreasonable nor are they without substantial basis in fact.

The Board’s Order shall be enforced in full.

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

*902 PER CURIAM:

The Board has petitioned for the enforcement of its order relating to the Oceanside plant of the respondent. The Board issued an opinion, reported at 180 NLRB No. 1 (December 12, 1969).

The thrust of the respondent’s opposition to the petition for enforcement is that the Board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The record is replete with testimony which clearly establishes respondent’s multiple violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Similarly, the Board’s findings with regard to the violations of Section 8(a) (3) are supported by inferences drawn from the evidence. Contrary to respondent’s view, these inferences are neither unreasonable nor are they without substantial basis in fact.

The Board’s Order shall be enforced in full.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-the-deutsch-company-electronic-ca9-1971.