National Labor Relations Board v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc.

391 F.2d 294, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7709

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 1968

Docket24719

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 391 F.2d 294 (National Labor Relations Board v. Waycross Sportswear, Inc.) 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. Waycross Sportswear, Inc., 391 F.2d 294, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7709 (5th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

During an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers among the employees of Waycross Sportswear Company, the Company took certain actions which became the basis for section 8(a) (1) and (3) 1 charges before the Board. The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner to the effect that section 8(a) (1) *295 had been violated by interrogation of and attempts to influence employees, and that section 8(a) (3) had been violated in the discharge of employee Cowart because he had engaged in union activities.

The findings on the section 8(a) (1) charges are fully supported by the evidence. The evidence concerning the section 8(a) (3) charge is conflicting and the Board’s decision rested on credibility choices. Being bound by these credibility determinations, Nabors v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 686, 692, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that Cowart was discharged in violation of section 8(a) (3).

Enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), (3).

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

PER CURIAM:

During an organizational campaign by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers among the employees of Waycross Sportswear Company, the Company took certain actions which became the basis for section 8(a) (1) and (3) 1 charges before the Board. The Board adopted the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner to the effect that section 8(a) (1) *295 had been violated by interrogation of and attempts to influence employees, and that section 8(a) (3) had been violated in the discharge of employee Cowart because he had engaged in union activities.

The findings on the section 8(a) (1) charges are fully supported by the evidence. The evidence concerning the section 8(a) (3) charge is conflicting and the Board’s decision rested on credibility choices. Being bound by these credibility determinations, Nabors v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 686, 692, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Board’s finding that Cowart was discharged in violation of section 8(a) (3).

Enforced.

1

. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), (3).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 F.2d 294, 67 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2928, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-waycross-sportswear-inc-ca5-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack