Uniroyal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Sixth Circuit

Uniroyal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

519 F.2d 1342, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2941, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14191

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1975

Docket74-2111

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 519 F.2d 1342 (Uniroyal, 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

Uniroyal, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 519 F.2d 1342, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2941, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14191 (6th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

There is before the Court for consideration a petition for review and cross-petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board which was issued August 23, 1974, and is reported at 213 NLRB No. 7. The unfair labor practices occurred at Oxford, Connecticut, where the petitioner maintains and operates the Waterbury-Oxford Airport. As is not infrequently the case, we are confronted with a situation in which the administrative law judge chose to discredit the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner and to credit those of the Union, but in the present instance he did not indicate the basis of the credibility determination as being the demeanor of the witnesses, their interest in the subject matter of the litigation, their manner of testifying, or otherwise. The Board approved and adopted the findings without comment in this regard. On such a state of the record, petitioner urges that the logic of the testimony should be the controlling factor in determining credibility, and that based thereon the petition should be granted. However, we conclude that it cannot be said that there is not sufficient testimony in the record to support the findings of fact, Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the order of the Board be and it hereby is enforced.

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

ORDER

There is before the Court for consideration a petition for review and cross-petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board which was issued August 23, 1974, and is reported at 213 NLRB No. 7. The unfair labor practices occurred at Oxford, Connecticut, where the petitioner maintains and operates the Waterbury-Oxford Airport. As is not infrequently the case, we are confronted with a situation in which the administrative law judge chose to discredit the testimony of the witnesses for the petitioner and to credit those of the Union, but in the present instance he did not indicate the basis of the credibility determination as being the demeanor of the witnesses, their interest in the subject matter of the litigation, their manner of testifying, or otherwise. The Board approved and adopted the findings without comment in this regard. On such a state of the record, petitioner urges that the logic of the testimony should be the controlling factor in determining credibility, and that based thereon the petition should be granted. However, we conclude that it cannot be said that there is not sufficient testimony in the record to support the findings of fact, Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the order of the Board be and it hereby is enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 F.2d 1342, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2941, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uniroyal-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca6-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack