National Labor Relations Board v. W. Ralston & Company, Inc., and Technical Tape Corporation

Second Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. W. Ralston & Company, Inc., and Technical Tape Corporation

298 F.2d 927, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6069

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 29, 1962

Docket166, Docket 27076

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 F.2d 927 (National Labor Relations Board v. W. Ralston & Company, Inc., and Technical Tape Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. W. Ralston & Company, Inc., and Technical Tape Corporation, 298 F.2d 927, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6069 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of an order directing respondents to cease and desist from conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) 1 2of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The pertinent findings 2 are that respondent coercively interrogated individual employees about union activity, threatened to move the plant because of the union, granted wage increases in order to counteract union influence, and posted an unlawful no solicitation rule. Respondents’ sole challenge to these findings is that they are not supported by substantial evidence. Because we find substantial credible evidence in the record to support each finding, we must enforce. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, 209 F.2d 596 (2 Cir. 1954), cert. denied 347 U.S. 966, 74 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108 (1954); N. L. R. B. v. Pratt, Read & Co., Inc., 191 F.2d 1006, 1009 (2 Cir. 1951); N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818 (2 Cir. 1955); Republic Aviation Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 557 (1945).

Enforcement granted.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1).

2

. Other findings were made as a result of a prior settlement agreement, but no specific challenge has been directed at them.

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

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of an order directing respondents to cease and desist from conduct violative of Section 8(a) (1) 1 2of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The pertinent findings 2 are that respondent coercively interrogated individual employees about union activity, threatened to move the plant because of the union, granted wage increases in order to counteract union influence, and posted an unlawful no solicitation rule. Respondents’ sole challenge to these findings is that they are not supported by substantial evidence. Because we find substantial credible evidence in the record to support each finding, we must enforce. Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, 209 F.2d 596 (2 Cir. 1954), cert. denied 347 U.S. 966, 74 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108 (1954); N. L. R. B. v. Pratt, Read & Co., Inc., 191 F.2d 1006, 1009 (2 Cir. 1951); N. L. R. B. v. Pyne Molding Corp., 226 F.2d 818 (2 Cir. 1955); Republic Aviation Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 557 (1945).

Enforcement granted.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1).

2

. Other findings were made as a result of a prior settlement agreement, but no specific challenge has been directed at them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F.2d 927, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-w-ralston-company-inc-and-technical-ca2-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack