Wilmington Heating Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Third Circuit

Wilmington Heating Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

414 F.2d 278, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3181, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11334

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 1969

Docket17543_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 414 F.2d 278 (Wilmington Heating Service, Inc. 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

Wilmington Heating Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 414 F.2d 278, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3181, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11334 (3d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

From our own examination of the record in this petition for review we find that there is substantial evidence on the whole case which fully justifies the findings of the Board that, petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by threatening employee James C. Ryan, Jr., with discharge if he voted for the union. N. L. R. B. v. G & J Co., 346 F.2d 960, 961 (3 Cir. 1965); N. L. R. B. v. Buitoni Foods Corporation, 298 F.2d 169, 173-174 (3 Cir. 1962); N. L. R. B. v. Morris Fishman & Sons, 278 F.2d 792 (3 Cir. 1960). We further find that there is substantial evidence on the whole case which strongly supports the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by granting wage increases in order to influence the outcome of a representation election conducted by the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964); Lincoln Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 382 F.2d 411, 414 (7 Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 972, 88 S.Ct. 470, 19 L.Ed.2d 463 (1967); N. L. R. B. v. Tidelands Marine *279 Service, Inc., 339 F.2d 291, 293 (5 Cir. 1964).

Also from our said examination of the record in this petition we find that there is ample evidence on the whole case which furnishes a thoroughly sound basis for the holding of the Board that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union. N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (June 16, 1969); United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 71-72, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L.Ed. 941 (1956); N. L. R. B. v. Quality Markets, Inc., 387 F.2d 20, 24 (3 Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Frank C. Varney Co., 359 F.2d 774, 775-776 (3 Cir. 1966).

The petition for review will be denied and the Board’s order enforced in full. The Board will submit proposed form of decree.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

From our own examination of the record in this petition for review we find that there is substantial evidence on the whole case which fully justifies the findings of the Board that, petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by threatening employee James C. Ryan, Jr., with discharge if he voted for the union. N. L. R. B. v. G & J Co., 346 F.2d 960, 961 (3 Cir. 1965); N. L. R. B. v. Buitoni Foods Corporation, 298 F.2d 169, 173-174 (3 Cir. 1962); N. L. R. B. v. Morris Fishman & Sons, 278 F.2d 792 (3 Cir. 1960). We further find that there is substantial evidence on the whole case which strongly supports the Board’s finding that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by granting wage increases in order to influence the outcome of a representation election conducted by the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964); Lincoln Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 382 F.2d 411, 414 (7 Cir. 1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 972, 88 S.Ct. 470, 19 L.Ed.2d 463 (1967); N. L. R. B. v. Tidelands Marine *279 Service, Inc., 339 F.2d 291, 293 (5 Cir. 1964).

Also from our said examination of the record in this petition we find that there is ample evidence on the whole case which furnishes a thoroughly sound basis for the holding of the Board that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union. N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (June 16, 1969); United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U.S. 62, 71-72, 76 S.Ct. 559, 100 L.Ed. 941 (1956); N. L. R. B. v. Quality Markets, Inc., 387 F.2d 20, 24 (3 Cir. 1967); N. L. R. B. v. Frank C. Varney Co., 359 F.2d 774, 775-776 (3 Cir. 1966).

The petition for review will be denied and the Board’s order enforced in full. The Board will submit proposed form of decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 F.2d 278, 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3181, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 11334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilmington-heating-service-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca3-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack