Skaggs Transfer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Sixth Circuit

Skaggs Transfer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

440 F.2d 994, 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2256, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedApril 12, 1971

Docket20890

StatusPublished

This text of 440 F.2d 994 (Skaggs Transfer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Skaggs Transfer, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 440 F.2d 994, 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2256, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809 (6th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM ORDER.

Upon consideration of the petition for review and the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), by coercively interrogating and threatening with reprisals its employees concerning their union activity, and in granting increased benefits to them in an attempt to restrain and coerce them in the exercise of their right to engage in collective bargaining activities. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the union.

The Court further finds that the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by laying off its part-time employee, Patti Mauzey, is not supported by substantial evidence, and its order of reinstatement will not be enforced.

Enforcement is therefore granted as to the Order of the Board except insofar as it relates to Patti Mauzey, and as to her the Order is denied.

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

PER CURIAM ORDER.

Upon consideration of the petition for review and the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (1), by coercively interrogating and threatening with reprisals its employees concerning their union activity, and in granting increased benefits to them in an attempt to restrain and coerce them in the exercise of their right to engage in collective bargaining activities. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the union.

The Court further finds that the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by laying off its part-time employee, Patti Mauzey, is not supported by substantial evidence, and its order of reinstatement will not be enforced.

Enforcement is therefore granted as to the Order of the Board except insofar as it relates to Patti Mauzey, and as to her the Order is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 F.2d 994, 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2256, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skaggs-transfer-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca6-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack