The Hartford Insurance Group v. National Labor Relations Board

Ninth Circuit

The Hartford Insurance Group v. National Labor Relations Board

434 F.2d 1312, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2255, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 18, 1970

Docket25057_1

StatusPublished

This text of 434 F.2d 1312 (The Hartford Insurance Group v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Hartford Insurance Group v. National Labor Relations Board, 434 F.2d 1312, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2255, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, The Hartford Insurance Group (“Hartford”), seeks to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, 1 and the Board seeks enforcement of its order. The Board found that Hartford violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by threatening its employees with reprisals for their union activities and that Hartford also violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by pretextual discharges of two of its employees, Robert E. Shea and Robert E. Dilley.

The only questions on appeal concern the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Board’s findings of fact and thus the Board’s order. We have examined each of Hartford’s contentions, and we have concluded that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the challenged findings of the Board. Accordingly Hartford’s petition to set aside the Board’s order is denied and the Board’s order will be enforced in full.

1

. The order is reported at 178 NLRB No. 96 (1969).

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, The Hartford Insurance Group (“Hartford”), seeks to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board, 1 and the Board seeks enforcement of its order. The Board found that Hartford violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by threatening its employees with reprisals for their union activities and that Hartford also violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by pretextual discharges of two of its employees, Robert E. Shea and Robert E. Dilley.

The only questions on appeal concern the sufficiency of the evidence to support the Board’s findings of fact and thus the Board’s order. We have examined each of Hartford’s contentions, and we have concluded that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the challenged findings of the Board. Accordingly Hartford’s petition to set aside the Board’s order is denied and the Board’s order will be enforced in full.

1

. The order is reported at 178 NLRB No. 96 (1969).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

434 F.2d 1312, 76 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2255, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-hartford-insurance-group-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca9-1970.