Springs, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board

Third Circuit

Springs, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board

264 F.2d 687, 43 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2696, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 16, 1959

Docket12741

StatusPublished

This text of 264 F.2d 687 (Springs, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Springs, Inc., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey v. National Labor Relations Board, 264 F.2d 687, 43 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2696, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912 (3d Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Springs, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, petitions to have a Labor Board order against it set aside. Contrariwise, the Board petitions for enforcement. The case involves a small number of employees in a plant at Hoboken. The employees numbered about seventeen. The charge is that eleven of them were discharged in violation of their rights under 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (1), § 158(a) (3) (1956).

We do not find error in the Labor Board’s decision in this case. The record developed was produced under some difficulty as the employees were, for the most part, Spanish and not English speaking. But there is enough to sustain the conclusion that the discharges were improper, under the statute. Nor do we find any prejudicial procedural action by the Board in the course of its hearing and decision.

The petition to review will be denied; the petition to enforce will be granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

Springs, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, petitions to have a Labor Board order against it set aside. Contrariwise, the Board petitions for enforcement. The case involves a small number of employees in a plant at Hoboken. The employees numbered about seventeen. The charge is that eleven of them were discharged in violation of their rights under 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (a) (1), § 158(a) (3) (1956).

We do not find error in the Labor Board’s decision in this case. The record developed was produced under some difficulty as the employees were, for the most part, Spanish and not English speaking. But there is enough to sustain the conclusion that the discharges were improper, under the statute. Nor do we find any prejudicial procedural action by the Board in the course of its hearing and decision.

The petition to review will be denied; the petition to enforce will be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F.2d 687, 43 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2696, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/springs-inc-a-corporation-of-the-state-of-new-jersey-v-national-labor-ca3-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack