United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

Third Circuit

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

456 F.2d 248, 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2774, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10848

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1972

Docket71-1460

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 248 (United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio 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

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, 456 F.2d 248, 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2774, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10848 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This ease is before us on the petition of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (union) to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing a complaint against Henry Vogt Machine Company (the employer) pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) (1970). The facts are fully stated in the Board’s decision and require no repetition here. The decision and order are reported at 190 N.L.R.B. No. 13.

The Henry Vogt Machine Company had been charged with violating Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally deciding not to pay a Christmas bonus in 1969. After hearing and the taking of testimony, the Trial Examiner concluded that the employer had engaged in an unfair labor practice by the unilateral discontinuance of the 1969 bonus payment and a refusal thereafter to meet with the union for the purpose of negotiating the matter. The Board, however, after a review of the record and findings of the Trial Examiner, concluded that the company did not violate the Act because there was a mutual understanding between the parties in their collective bargaining negotiations in the preceding August that payment of, nonpayment of and changes in Christmas bonuses would continue to remain within management’s discretion. In examining these negotiations, the Board stated the facts, “realistically interpreted, indicate that the parties had reached a mutual understanding that the previous discretionary status of the bonus would remain unchanged.” It, therefore, dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find therein substantial evidence as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the employer did not violate Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. We will not disturb this finding. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 491, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. Local 18, Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers’ International Union of America, AFL-CIO, 453 F.2d 863 (3d Cir., filed Dec. 22, 1971).

The petition for review will be denied.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This ease is before us on the petition of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (union) to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board dismissing a complaint against Henry Vogt Machine Company (the employer) pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(c) (1970). The facts are fully stated in the Board’s decision and require no repetition here. The decision and order are reported at 190 N.L.R.B. No. 13.

The Henry Vogt Machine Company had been charged with violating Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally deciding not to pay a Christmas bonus in 1969. After hearing and the taking of testimony, the Trial Examiner concluded that the employer had engaged in an unfair labor practice by the unilateral discontinuance of the 1969 bonus payment and a refusal thereafter to meet with the union for the purpose of negotiating the matter. The Board, however, after a review of the record and findings of the Trial Examiner, concluded that the company did not violate the Act because there was a mutual understanding between the parties in their collective bargaining negotiations in the preceding August that payment of, nonpayment of and changes in Christmas bonuses would continue to remain within management’s discretion. In examining these negotiations, the Board stated the facts, “realistically interpreted, indicate that the parties had reached a mutual understanding that the previous discretionary status of the bonus would remain unchanged.” It, therefore, dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

We have carefully reviewed the record and find therein substantial evidence as a whole to support the Board’s finding that the employer did not violate Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. We will not disturb this finding. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 491, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); NLRB v. Local 18, Bricklayers, Masons & Plasterers’ International Union of America, AFL-CIO, 453 F.2d 863 (3d Cir., filed Dec. 22, 1971).

The petition for review will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 248, 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2774, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-steelworkers-of-america-afl-cio-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack