Saco-Lowell Shops, a Division of Maremont Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

Fourth Circuit

Saco-Lowell Shops, a Division of Maremont Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

405 F.2d 175, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2727, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4892

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 14, 1968·No. 12201_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board found that Saco-Lowell Shops, a division of Maremont Corporation, had violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by the distribution of a handbook at its plant in Easley, South Carolina, containing a too rigid restriction upon the solicitation of employees to sign union authorization or membership cards, and had there also violated § 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3), in discharging an employee because of his activities on behalf of the union. 169 N.L.R.B. No. 151 (February 28, 1968).

We are asked by the Board to enforce its remedial order; Saco-Lowell requests it be vacated. Our province is limited to the ascertainment of the substantiality of the evidence underlying the Board’s action. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). As we cannot say that the proof did not meet the requisite standard, we will enforce the decision of the Board.

Order enforced.

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

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board found that Saco-Lowell Shops, a division of Maremont Corporation, had violated § 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by the distribution of a handbook at its plant in Easley, South Carolina, containing a too rigid restriction upon the solicitation of employees to sign union authorization or membership cards, and had there also violated § 8(a) (3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3), in discharging an employee because of his activities on behalf of the union. 169 N.L.R.B. No. 151 (February 28, 1968).

We are asked by the Board to enforce its remedial order; Saco-Lowell requests it be vacated. Our province is limited to the ascertainment of the substantiality of the evidence underlying the Board’s action. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). As we cannot say that the proof did not meet the requisite standard, we will enforce the decision of the Board.

Order enforced.

Saco-Lowell Shops, a Division of Maremont Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 405 F.2d 175, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2727, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 4892 (4th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

405 F.2d 175 (Saco-Lowell Shops, a Division of Maremont Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related