Stouffer Management Food Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Sixth Circuit

Stouffer Management Food Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

599 F.2d 791, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2161, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13868

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 19, 1979

Docket77-1220

StatusPublished

This text of 599 F.2d 791 (Stouffer Management Food Service, 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

Stouffer Management Food Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 599 F.2d 791, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2161, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13868 (6th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Stouffer Management Food Service, Inc., petitions for review and the National Labor Relations Board cross-petitions for enforcement of an order of the NLRB finding petitioner to be in violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. 227 N. L. R. B. No. 163. The NLRB found that petitioner had discharged and suspended certain employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. The main thrust of petitioner’s argument in this court is that the employees in question were disciplined because they had been drinking alcoholic beverages on the job and were intoxicated when they should have been working. The NLRB concedes that the drinking took place and that certain employees were obviously intoxicated but it argues that the real reason for their discipline was their protected concerted activity.

This court has considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and has studied the record and is fully advised in the premises. The court is of the opinion that there is not substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the finding that the discipline was the product of pro *792 tected concerted activity. It appears clear that the discharge was motivated by the employees’ misbehavior.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the petition for review is granted, the order of the NLRB is set aside, and the cross-petition for enforcement is denied.

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

ORDER

Stouffer Management Food Service, Inc., petitions for review and the National Labor Relations Board cross-petitions for enforcement of an order of the NLRB finding petitioner to be in violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. 227 N. L. R. B. No. 163. The NLRB found that petitioner had discharged and suspended certain employees for engaging in protected concerted activity. The main thrust of petitioner’s argument in this court is that the employees in question were disciplined because they had been drinking alcoholic beverages on the job and were intoxicated when they should have been working. The NLRB concedes that the drinking took place and that certain employees were obviously intoxicated but it argues that the real reason for their discipline was their protected concerted activity.

This court has considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and has studied the record and is fully advised in the premises. The court is of the opinion that there is not substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the finding that the discipline was the product of pro *792 tected concerted activity. It appears clear that the discharge was motivated by the employees’ misbehavior.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the petition for review is granted, the order of the NLRB is set aside, and the cross-petition for enforcement is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 F.2d 791, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2161, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stouffer-management-food-service-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca6-1979.